court responses to individuals in need of services
TRANSCRIPT
o ~ J~
Court Responses to Individuals in Need of Services:
Promising
components
of a service
coordination
strategy for
courts
Pamela Casey
William E. Hewitt
k O
If you have issues viewing or accessing this file, please contact us at NCJRS.gov.
1 7o7
Court Responses to Individuals in Need of Services:
3 JL
ltl
Promising components of a service coordination strategy for
c o u r t s
Pamela Casey
William E. Hewitt
P R O P E R T Y OF National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS) Box 6000 Rockville, MD 20849-6000 -'~ . . . . .
National Center for State Courts • Williamsburg, Virginia
© Copyright 2001 National Center for State Courts ISBN 0-89656-211-5
\
This project was supported by Grant No. 94-MU-CX-0004 awarded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. The Bureau of Justice Assistance is a component of the Office of Justice Programs, which also includes the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the National Institute of Justice, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delin- quency Prevention, and the Office for Victims of Crime. Points of view in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Publication design by Judith Ann Sullivan
TABLE OF C O N T E N T S
Acknowledgments
Chapter 1 Introduction ........................................................................................ 7
Table 1. Examples of Problem-Solving Courts ............................................................ 8
Chapter 2 Goals of Service Coordination: A Court Perspective ................. 13
PERFORMANCE AREA 1 :AccEss TO JUSTICE .................................................................... 14
PERFORMANCE ARF~X 2: EXI'EDITION AND TIMEHNESS .................................................... 15
PERFORMANCE AREA 3:EQUALITY, FAIRNVLSS, AND INTEGRITY .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
PERFORMANCE AREA 4: INDEPENDENCE AND ACCOUNTABIHTY ....................................... 1 8
PE'RFORMANCE A R ~ 5: PUBHC TRUST AND CONFIDENCE .............................................. 19
Table 2: Key Questions for Courts by Performance Areas ......................................... 20
Chapter 3 The Problem-Solving Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
COMMON FEATURES OF THE PROBLEM-SoLVING APPROACH ............................................ 23
JUVENILE COURTS: AN EARL'," PROTOTYPE OF THE PROBLEM-SoLVING APPROACH ............. 24
DRUG COURTS: A CONTEMPORARY MODEL OF THE PROBLEM-SOL\qNG APPROACH ......... 26
OTHER APPLICATIONS OF THE PROBLEM-SOLVING APPROACH ......................................... 27
Chapter 4
PROMISING COMPONI-NT ] :
PROMISING COMPONENT 2:
PROMISING COMI'ONENrF 3:
PROMISING COMPONENW 4:
PROMISING COMPONENT 5:
PROMISING COMI'ONENW 6:
PROMISING COMI'ONENrl" 7:
Promising Components for Effective Court-Based Service Coordination ................................................ 31
ACKNOWI.EDGH) COURT ROLE IN
SERVICE COOP.DIN/WION ...................................................... 32
JUDICIAl. ANt) COURT LEADF.RSHIP ........................................ 33
AN AcrwE I)OLICY COMMH'FEE OF STAKEHOLDERS ................ 35
CASE-LEVEl. SERVICE COORDINA'IORS .................................... 36
CENTRAHZED ACCtK% TO SERVICE NFTI'WORK ......................... 38
AcrI\'E Coul~r MoNrrORING OF COMPLIANCE
wrrH ORDERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
ROUTINE COLLECHON AND USF. OF DATA ....... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Chapter 4 continued
PROMISING COMPONENT 8: CRFAT1VF USE OF RESOURCES ............................................... 45
PROMISING COMI'ONI;'N'I" 9: TRAINING AND EDUCATION RELATED TO SERVaCZ COORDINA11ON ...................................................... 46
MO\qNG FORWARD ..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
R e f e r e n c e s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
A p p e n d i x A ............................................................................................................. 57
A p p e n d i x B ............................................................................................................. 63
A C K N O W L E D G M E N T S
The authors are indebted to many individuals who contributed to the completion of this report. First among these are the members of the Advisory Committee who provided expertise and advice as we undertook the study of this multifaceted subject. Thanks to Ms. Trine Bech, Dr. Allen Brown, Mr. Leland Fish, Judge Richard FitzGerald, Judge Aubrey Ford, Jr., Mr. Lowell Groundland, Dr. Kathleen Hayes, Mr. Ronald Overholt, Dr. Alan Tomkins, and Dr. Gregg Wright.
We are grateful to the numerous judges, court staff, attorneys, and service providers who participated in the project's telephone interviews and field research. In particular, we acknowledge the eight jurisdictions that served as field sites:
• Richland County Family Court in Columbia, South Carolina, • Sacramento Superior and Municipal Courts in California, • Jefferson Family Court in Louisville, Kentucky, • Mental Health Court in Broward County, Florida, • Circuit Court in Kalamazoo, Michigan, including its drug courts; ° Manhattan Youth Part in New York County, New York, • Oregon Judicial Department and Integrated Family Courts in Deschutes
and Jackson Counties, and • King County Unified Family Court in Seattle, Washington.
The judges, court staff, attorneys, and service agency representatives from these sites graciously granted us interviews, provided us with relevant documentation, and offered us the benefits of their insights and experience.
A special thanks to the University of Nebraska Public Policy Center for its assistance in planning and convening two focus groups to obtain feedback on an earlier version of the report. The focus groups included a cross section of practitioners and scholars from both the legal and service communities. We thank the participants for their careful review and suggestions.
Many staff have been involved in the project at various points. We are grateful to Karin Armstrong, Thomas Cohen, Cot, rtenay Davis, Hillery Efkeman, Carol Flango, Victor Flango, Lynn Grimes, Paula Hannaford, Susan Keilitz, Lynn Levey, and Pamela Petrakis for their contributions. We also benefited from the able assistance of research assistants Anita Jemjemian and Deborah Schutte and the editing skills of Ann Keith.
Finally, we owe our sincere appreciation to the Bureau of Justice Assistance, Office of Justice Programs, for its support of the project, and to Mr. Gale Farquhar, Ms. Marilyn Nejelski, Ms. Jennifer Knobe, and Ms. Jeannie Santos for their thoughtful direction and their enduring patience in seeing the project to completion.
C H A P T E R 1
I N T R O D U C T I O N
Many of today's court cases such as divorce, custody, domestic violence, child abuse and
neglect, juvenile delinquenc); drunken driving, guardianship, drug possession, and a
variety of misdemeanor "quality of life" offenses often involve individuals with a host of
medical, psychological, and social problems. Generally, these individuals (a) have not
had contact with the traditional service net operating in their jurisdiction and are now in
crisis, (b) have had contact but have since fallen outside the traditional net, or (c) remain
in need of services despite continued contact with community service agencies, l
These cases are coming to court in increasing numbers. Chief Judge Judith Kaye of
New York describes the current environment: We've wimessed the breakdown of the family and of other traditional safety nets. So what we're seeing in the courts is many, many more substance abuse cases. We have a huge number of domestic violence cases. We have many many more quality-of-life crimes. And it's not just the subject of the cases that's different. We get a lot of repeat business. We're recycling the same people through the system. And things get worse. We know from experience that a drug possession or an assat, lt today could be something considerably worse tomorrow. (Berman, 2000, p. 80)
These types of cases pose particular challenges for courts. Traditional court pro-
cesses were designed to make specific decisions; they were not designed to address the
underlying social and psychological problems that lead these cases to court. Conse-
quentl); courts are crafting legally relevant but ineffective decisions. Although individual
The term "services" is defined broadly as assistance to address the ",vide range of needs (e.g., educational, employment, health, housing, mental heahh, social services) presented by individuals appearing in court.
8 1~. COURT RESPONSES TO INDIVIDUALS IN NEED OF SERVICF.S
TABLE 1
Examples o f P rob lem-Solv ing Cour ts
Type of Court Jurisdiction
Community Primarily address low-level "quality of life" Courts crimes such as shoplifting, prostitution, drug
possession, and disorderly conduct. Some courts expanding jurisdiction to include en- vironmental ordinance violations, housing code violations, delinquency, and felony pro- perty offenses (Lee, 2000).
Types of Service Referrals"
A variety of social services such as employment counseling and assis- tance with entitlements, drug treat- ment services, and counseling (Lee, 2000).
Domestic Violence Courts
Most specialized courts/calendars handle civil protection orders; some handle domestic vio- lence misdemeanors, and a few handle domes- tic violence felonies (Keilitz, 2000, pp. 20-21).
Legal victim advocacy, social and economic services (e.g., emergency housing, vocational services, public assistance, elder assistance, general community support services, children's services), medical psychological, and mental health services (Keilitz, 2000, pp. 27-28).
Drug Cour t s
Primarily drug possession offenses. Some courts also accept prescription drug fraud, sales of small amounts of drugs, theft and property offenses. A few also include check and credit card forgeries and prostitution (Cooper, 1997, p. 16).
Detox, stabilization, counseling, drug education and therapy; personal and educational development; job skills; and employment, housing, famil); and medical services. Some also provide acu- puncture services (Cooper, 1997, p. 42).
Family CouFt$
Jurisdiction varies considerably across states. Most courts have jurisdiction over some com- bination of the following: divorce, annulment, and property distribution; child custody and visitation; alimony and child support; paternig~, adoption, and termination of parental rights; juvenile causes (juvenile delinquenc); child abuse, and child neglect); domestic violence; criminal nonsupport; name change; guardian- ship of minors and disabled persons; and with- holding or withdrawal of life-sustaining medical procedures, involuntary admissions, and emer- gency evaluations (Babb, 1998, p. 535, note 1).
Generally include alternative dispute resolution options, custody evalua- tion, child representation, substance abuse counseling, parent education, and anger management. May also include educational services, mental health assessments, and emergency financial and housing assistance (Burhans, 1998).
Mental Health Courts
Primarily misdemeanors and some low-level felonies involving persons with a serious men- tal illness or developntental disability (Gold- kamp & Imns-Guynn, 2000).
Mental health treatment and related support services such as housing, substance abuse treatment, training in social and independent living skills, and vocational training (Goldkamp & Irons-Guynn, 2000).
*Referrals may be to court-based programs, service liaisons housed in the court, or to service agencies within the community.
INTRODUCTION 1~ 9
cases are disposed, they are not really resolved because the underlying problems are not
addressed. The result is that the problems often resurface in the form of new cases.
In response, courts are experimenting with a variety of innovative programs that
focus on closer collaboration with the service communities in their jurisdictions. These
programs vary considerably from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and even by different casetypes
within a jurisdiction, but they all stress a collaborative, multidisciplinary, problem-solv-
ing approach to address the underlying issues of individuals appearing in court.
The most formal and comprehensive versions of these programs are the specialized
"problem-solving" courts and court calendars developed to address domestic violence,
drug abuse, family matters, mental illness, quality of life crimes such as prostitution, and
so forth. These courts and specialized calendars emphasize the importance of links to
medical, social service, and treatment providers and generally involve special procedures
and alternative sentencing options to promote effective case outcomes. Table 1 provides
examples of these courts, the types of cases they handle, and the types of services they
refer individuals to either on a voluntary or mandated basis or in some combination.
Although subject matter jurisdiction varies across the courts, they all have service
coordination as a core feature of their operation, and service coordination begins early in
the process--often post-arrest to determine eligibility for programs and the need for
emergency services. Some courts are pre-adjudicatory and diversion oriented, and oth-
ers require a plea before a treatment plan is implemented, but much service coordination
has usually taken place by the time a treatment order is entered.
In 1999, the Conference of Chief Justices ( c c J ) and the Conference of State Court
Administrators (COSCA) established a Task Force to "advance strategies, policies, and
recommendations on the future of these courts" (Conference of Chief Justices and Con-
ference of State Court Administrators [CCJ & COSCA], 2000, p. 1). The Task Force's
subsequent resolution, adopted by both CCJ and COSCA, acknowledged the "integra-
tion of treatment services" as a core principle of these courts--and one that advances
court performance and public trust and confidence: There are principles and methods grounded in therapeutic jurisprt*dence, in- cluding integration of treatment services with judicial case processing, ongoing judicial intervention, close monitoring of and immediate response to behavior, multidiscipliilary involvement, and collaboration with community-based and government organizations. These principles and methods are now being em- ployed in these newly arising courts and calendars, and they advance the appli- cation of the trial court performance standards and the public trust and confi- dence initiative. (CCJ & COSCA, 2000, p. 1) 2
2 See Appendix A for full text of the resolution.
] 0 ~ COURT RESPONSES TO INDIVIDUAl2 IN NEED OF SERVICES
The CCJ and COSCA resolution recommended the careful study and evaluation of
these principles and methods and, "where appropriate, the broad integration [italics added]
... of the principles and methods employed in problem-solving courts into the adminis-
tration of justice to improve court processes and outcomes while preserving the rule of
law, enhancing judicial effectiveness, and meeting the needs and expectations of liti-
gants, victims, and the community" (CCJ & COSCA, 2000, p. 2). Thus these problem-
solving courts offer a rich laboratory of experimentation and a starting point to explore
promising court practices that integrate treatment services with judicial case processing
to address the service needs of individuals in courts. 3
This report begins that exploration. The intent of the report is not to suggest that
all courts become problem-solving courts; rather, it is to identify features of the problem-
solving approach that may be adapted by courts--given their local legal and service
cultures and resources--to help improve service coordination.
The report considers service coordination in the broader context of a court's work.
Interviews with court and service professionals who are involved in cases typically found
in problem-solving courts revealed that service coordination issues were integrally linked
to other court goals. Thus examining them apart from other court performance issues
(such as court timeliness, fairness, and independence) is artificial.
Given this broader focus, Chapter 2 explores service-related issues in the context of
the Trial Court Performance Standards. The Trial Court Performance Standards iden-
tify five fundamental responsibilities of trial courts: (1) access to justice, (2) expedition
and timeliness, (3) equality, fairness, and integrity, (4) independence and accountabil-
ity, and (5) public trust and confidence (Bureau of Justice Assistance [BJA], 1997). Key service coordination questions related to each of these court performance goals are sug-
gested in Chapter 2.
Crafting answers to many of the key service coordination questions requires courts
to reach out to other community entities. Working with other community entities to
meet goals is a hallmark of problem-solving courts. Chapter 3 provides an overview of
the problem-solving approach and briefly describes several examples of courts that fit
the rubric.
~ These courts are not without their critics. See, for example, Hoffman (2000), "In their mad rush to dispose of cases, drug courts are risking the due process rights of defendants and turning all of us--judges, staff, prosecutors, and the public defenders alike--into cogs in an out-of-control case-processing machine" (p. 1533). The philosophical debate regarding the proper role, if any, of the court in service-related issues has raged for at least a hundred years when the development of juvenile courts was first contemplated (see Appendix B for some of the issues/arguments). However, as evidenced by the CCJ and COSCA resolution, "In Support of Problem-Solving Courts" (see Appendix A), the Nation's state court leadership sees potential value in the approach of these courts and encourages further stud)'.
l NTRODUCI'ION I~ 1 1
Chapter 4 suggests nine promising components of an effective service coordina-
tion strategy based on a problem-solving approach. The components were derived from
three sources: • reviews of academic and practitioner articles and reports addressing the issue
of service coordination between courts and various community service agencies;
• telephone interviews with court personnel in fifty jurisdictions (one court randomly selected from each state) focusing on the coordination of services within the context of three casetypes: involuntary civil commitment, domes- tic violence, and child abuse and neglect; and
• field research in eight jurisdictions exploring how courts work with service agency providers to identify and provide services for individuals involved in c o u r t cases. 4
The information from these sources underscores why one model of service coordi-
nation is not appropriate. Jurisdictions vary considerably with regard to their local legal
and service cultures and resources. What works for one jt, risdiction may need significant
modifications to work in another. The focus on performance goals and key service coor-
dination questions is intended to offer a flexible approach for each jurisdiction to assess
its current service coordination needs, and the promising components of effective service
coordination offer a starting point to address those needs given local jurisdiction culture
and resources.
"* The first three field research sites were selected based on their approach to service provision. Richland County Family Court in Columbia, South Carolina was selected as a court that primarily refers individuals to services; the Sacramento Superior and Municipal Courts in California were selected because of their efforts to link with service providers at both the individual and policy level; and theJefferson Family Court in Louisville, Kentucky was selected as a court that links individuals to services and provides some services in the courthouse. Additional sites were chosen because of innovative approaches to service coordination. These sites include: the Mental Health Court in Broward County, Florida; the Circuit Court in Kalamazoo, Michigan, including its drug courts; the Manhattan Youth Part in New York County, New York; the Oregon Judicial Department and Integrated Family Courts in Deschutes and Jackson Counties; and the King County Unified Family Court in Seattle, Washington. The field research for this project was supplemented with information from site visits to other jurisdictions (e.g., the Midtown Community Court in New York and the Domestic Violence Unit of the Superior Court for the District of Colombia) conducted for other projects of the N a t i o n a l C e n t e r for State C o u r t s .
CHAPTER 2 ~t
GOALS OF SERVICE COORDINATION: A COURT PERSPECTIVE
Service agency goals focus on improving the health and well-being of the individuals
they serve. Ultimately, they seek to reduce child abuse and neglect, domestic violence,
substance abuse, and so forth. Obviously, court performance cannot be judged by these
same goals. That is, a court, by itself, is not responsible for the reduction of child abuse in
its jurisdiction. However, it can use its powers to ensure treatment is available to those
who need it. Thus courts can consider what contributions they make to these broader
societal goals within the parameters of court goals)
The Conference of Chief Justices, the Conference of State Court Administrators,
the American Judges Association, and the National Association for Court Management
have acknowledged the Trial Court Performance Standards as articulating the funda-
mental goals and responsibilities of courts (BJA, 1997). There are 22 standards that fall
into five broad areas of performance: (1) access to justice; (2) expedition and timeliness;
(3) equality, fairness, and integrity; (4) independence and accountability; and (5) public
trust and confidence.
These broad areas provide the context for exploring a court's role in addressing the
service needs of individuals in court. What are the critical service-related questions courts
should be asking within each performance area? A description of each performance area
s See, for example, the recommendations of the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges" Alcohol & Substance Abuse Committee (1995):
Courts alone cannot resolve the alcohol and other drug problems in American society at any level, youth or adult. However, they can and must be a strong force within their communities for reduc- ing the problem. (p. 4)
Also see Commission on the Future of the California Courts (1993), "The judicial branch should be a helpful and forcefid participant in ensuring that families receive the social support they need" (p. 125).
14 1~. COURT RESPONSES TO INDIVIDUAI^S IN NEED OF SERVICES
and critical questions follows. To answer some of the questions, courts may need to
reach out to service agencies and other community entities to obtain information about
specific issues.
PERFORMANCE AREA 1: ACCESS TO JUSTICE
Trial courts should be open and accessible. Location, physical structure, procedures, and the responsiveness of personnel affect accessibility. Accordingly, the five stan- dards grouped under Access to fi~stice require a trial court to eliminate unnecessary barriers to its services. Such barriers can be geographic, economic, and procedural. They can be caused by deficiencies in both language and knowledge of individuals
participating in court proceedings. Additionally, psychological barriers can be cre- ated by mysterious, remote, unduly complicated, and intimidating court procedures.
(BJA, 1997, p. 7)
What are the implications of this performance goal on the court's level of concern
and engagement with services? At a basic level, courts should be aware that location,
procedures, eligibility requirements, fees, language and cultural differences, and the re-
sponsiveness of agency and court personnel affect the accessibility of services to indi-
viduals in court. What does the court do to identify barriers to services within its juris-
diction? Are there court policies, procedures, or practices that affect accessibility? Does
the court itself create or exacerbate barriers? What accommodations can the court make
on its own or in concert with appropriate service agencies to facilitate access to services?
Some key access questions for courts and relevant service agencies to discuss are:
• At what points in the court process do issues of service needs arise (e.g., intake,
presentence investigation, sentencing/disposition)?
• Who (e.g., attorney, probation officer, judge, court staff, defendant/party to a
case) identifies a need for services at these various points?
• Does the current approach work? Are individuals with service needs identified
appropriately from the perspectives of court officials, service providers, and the
parties to a case? Are there policies or practices the court or other involved party
could change to make the needs-identification process work better?
• What court forms, documents, and other paperwork are necessary to access ser-
vices? Are the processes and forms understood and easy to complete? What modi-
fications might improve accessibility?
• What types of services are not available to individuals in court? What can be done
to ensure access to needed services?
GOALS OF SERVICE COORDINATION: A COURT PERSPECTIVE ~ | 5
• Does the court order or recommend services that are difficult to access because of
location? How can these barriers (e.g., transportation costs) be alleviated?
* What types of needed services are prohibitively expensive to access? How can the
court and community address the problem?
PERFORMANCE AREA 2: EXPEDITION AND TIMELINESS
Courts are entrusted with many duties and responsibilities that affect individuals
and organizations involved with the judicial system, including litigants, jurors,
attorneys, witnesses, criminal justice agencies, social service agencies, and members
of the public. The repercussions from untimely court actions in any of these involve-
ments can have serious consequences for the persons directly concerned, the court,
allied agencies, and the community at large.
A trial court should meet its responsibilities to everyone affected by its actions and
activities in a timely and expeditious manner--one that does not cause delay. Un-
necessary delay causes injustice and hardship. It is a primary cause of diminished
public trust and confidence in the court. (BJA, 1997, p. 10)
Delay in identifying individuals in need of services or in providing services may
cause unnecessary hardship, result in further deterioration of existing conditions, and
have serious consequences for the effective resolution of court cases. The issue of time is
especially crucial in family cases involving children. "Given the importance of time in a
child's life, court delay may have implications for juveniles that are both quantitatively
and qualitatively different than its implications for adults" (Mahoney, 1985, p. 54).
Based on the Expedition and Timeliness performance goal, courts have an obliga-
tion to meet their service coordination responsibilities, such as obtaining assessments,
sharing pertinent information, transferring critical documents to relevant professionals,
or disbursing funds in a timely and expeditious manner. Effective courts work with ser-
vice agencies to establish and ensure mutual compliance with schedules and to develop
time guidelines for completing essential service coordination activities.
Some key timeliness questions for courts and service agencies to discuss are:
• Are there case management procedures in place to ensure the timely identifica- tion, acquisition, and provision of services? Does the court order services without knowing whether the services are actually available?
• What is the backlog of cases waiting to be screened or waiting for specific services?
• Is there a formal or informal "triage" system in place to identify cases that involve more sensitive time issues (e.g., pregnant women with health risks) with regard to service needs?
16 ~. COURT RESPONSF~q TO |NDIVIDUALS IN NEED OF SERVlCES
• How quickly are files updated with service information? Do individuals involved
with the case have relevant information when needed?
PERFORMANCE AREA 3: EQUALITY, FAIRNESS, AND INTEGRITY
Trial courts should provide due process and equal protection of the law to all who
have business before them, as guaranteed by the Federal and State constitutions. Equality and fairness demand equal fl.tice under law. These fi~ndamental consti-
tutional principles have particular significance for groups who may have suffered bias or prejudice based on race, religion, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, color,
age, handicap, or political affiliation.
Integrity should characterize the nature and substance of trial court procedures and decisions, and the consequences of those decisions. The decisions and actions of a trial court should adhere to the duties and obligations imposed on the court by
relevant law as well as administrative rules, policies, and ethical and professional standards. What the trial court does and how it does it should be governed by a
court's legal and administrative obligations; similarly what occurs as a result of the
court's decisions should be consistent with those decisions.
Integrity refers not only to the lawfidness of court actions (e.g., compliance with constitutional rights to bail, legal representation, a jury trial, and a record of legal proceeding) but also to the results or consequences of its orders. A trial court's pe~Cor -
mance is diminished when, for example, its mechanisms and procedures for enforc-
ing its chiM support orders are ineffective or nonexistent. Performance also is dimin- ished when summonses and orders for payment of fines or restitution are routinely ignored. The court authority and its orders should guide the actions of those under
its jurisdiction both before and after a case is resolved. (BJA, 1997, pp. 12-13)
The distinct and unique purpose of courts is to guarantee fair treatment and equal
rights to all citizens. The standards grouped together in this area are therefore viewed as
central to trial court performance, and four of the six standards are worth special atten-
tion in the context of court concern with services.
First, Standard 3.3, "Trial courts give individual attention to cases, deciding them
without undue disparity among like cases and upon legally relevant factors" (BJA, 1997,
p. 15), suggests a clear indicator of quality in court performance--individual atten-
tion to cases.
Standard 3.4, "The trial court renders decisions that unambiguously address the
issues presented to it and clearly indicate how compliance can be achieved [italics added]"
(BJA, 1997, p. 15), suggests that the integrity of the relationship between decisions and
GOALS OF SERVICE COORDINATION: A COURT PERSPECHVE ~ 17
services is another component of quality. Quality of service provision presupposes that
everyone concerned understands the intended outcomes of court orders. Moreover, there
should be a clear connection between the issues the court has been asked to resolve and
the services the court orders to resolve those issues.
Standard 3.5, "The trial court takes appropriate responsibility for the enforcement
of its orders" (BJA, 1997, p. 16), clearly evokes the need for a monitoring and reporting
component to service provision. Are the affected parties following through on specific
mandates related to service? Is the agency acting as expected with respect to the services
it is providing?
Standard 3.6, "Records of all relevant court decisions and actions are acct, rate and
properly preserved" (BJA, 1997, p. 16), emphasizes that complete and accurate docu-
mentation of both the court's decisions and ac t ions Iand those of the service provider--
are essential to program evaluation and provider assessment.
Taken together, these standards highlight issues related to the quality and integrity
of services. The), imply access to competent and reliable service professionals and accu-
rate service history information. 6 The integrity of service provision is maintained when
individt, als are properly matched with programs that address their specific needs. Integ-
rity is also enhanced to the extent that individuals are involved in the identification and
treatment of their own problems, and the ordered services comprehensively address
their needs. For example, individuals' basic needs such as housing and health care may
need to be addressed as well as their mental health or substance abuse problems.
Some key equality, fairness, and integrity questions for courts and service agencies
to discuss are:
• How are priorities for services determined? Are the types of services made avail-
able to individuals in court developed in a way that fairly reflects needs? Are the
service needs of specific court populations overlooked or ignored?
• Are existing services available equally to individt, als in court who need them?
• Are the qtialifications of the individuals involved in identifying service needs
appropriate for the populations and problems they are expected to evaluate?
• Arc there any standardized protocols and risk assessment inventories t, sed to iden-
tify service needs and placement? If so, are they effective for court purposes? Are
they valid and reliable?
• Do recommended service plans address the specific needs of individt, al clients?
~' F.dwards (1992) discusses the importance of having good information upon which to make decisions: "The quali9" of a judge's decision about children and their families is directly related to the quality of information the judge receives" (p. 26).
l 8 1~ COURT RESPONSES TO ]NDIV1DUAI.S IN NEED OF SERVICES
• Are court orders requiring services clear?
• Is the implementation of court orders monitored? That is, are court orders in-
volving service issues enforced?
• What efforts are made to ensure services are culturally sensitive?
PERFORMANCE AREA 4: INDEPENDENCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY
The judiciary must assert and maintain its distinctiveness as a separate branch of government. Within the organizational structure of the judicial branch of govern- ment, trial courts must establish their legal and organizational boundaries, monitor and control their operations, and account publicly for their performance. Indepen- dence and accountability permit government by law, access to justice, and the timely resolution of disputes with equaliff, fairness, and integrity; and they engender pub- lic trust and confidence. Courts must both control their proper functions and dem- onstrate respect for their coequal partners in government. (BJA, 1997, p. 17)
The effectiveness of the service system for individuals in court involves not only the
effective operation of the court and the local service system, but also the effective coordi-
nation between them. Court populations in need of services are not the sole responsibil-
i t , /of either the courts or the service system. Therefore, clarity with regard to role expec-
tations, responsibilities, and funding are critical. Responsibilities of courts and service
agencies vary across jurisdictions and even across populations within jurisdictions be-
cause of differences in local legal and service cultures and available resources. This per-
formance area addresses the need to promote understanding between the two branches
of government and clarify responsibilities regarding people in court with service needs.
Beyond coordinating and monitoring services, this guideline also focuses on account-
ability. That is, to what extent are available resources used efficiently and fairly and with
what outcomes?
Some key independence and accountability questions for courts and service agen-
cies to discuss are:
• Who is in charge of obtaining various services for an individual?
• How are services coordinated across court and service agencies (e.g., to determine
scheduling, ensure compatibility, avoid duplication or fragmentation)?
• What information about the client do service agencies and the court share? How
is the information made available?
• Are the court, client, service agencies, and others involved in the identification, acquisi-
tion, and provision of services clear with regard to their respective responsibilities?
GOALS OF SERVICE COORDINATION: A COURT PERSPECTIVE ~ 19
• Who monitors the delivery of services and tracks client progress?
• Are individuals/entities held accountable for deviations from court orders?
• Are agency services periodically evaluated?
• Is information across services and cases routinely recorded and reviewed
(e.g., types of services by types and numbers of cases; costs of services)?
• What emerging service needs require additional or reallocation of resources in the
near future?
PERFORMANCE AREA 5: PUBLIC TRUST AND CONFIDENCE
Compliance with law depends, to some degree, on public respect for the court. Ide-
ally, public trust and confidence in trial courts should stem f~om the direct experi-
ence o f citizens zoith the courts. The max'im 'Justice should not only be done, but
should be seen to be done/" is as true today as in the past. Unfortxmately, there is no
gTlarantee that public perceptions reflect actual court performance.
Several constituencies are served by trial courts, and all should have trust and confi-
dence in the courts. These constituencies vary by the type and extent o f their contact
with the courts. At the most general level is the local communit~ or the "general
public"--the vast majority of citizens and taxpayers who seldom experience the
courts directly. A second constituency served by trial courts is a communi(y's opinion
leaders (e.g., the local newspaper editor, reporters assigned to cover the court, the
police chief, local and State executives and legislators, representatives of government
organizations with power or influence over the courts, researchers, and members o f
court watch committees). A third constituency includes citizens who appear before
the court as attorneys, litigants, jurors, or witnesses, or who attend proceedings as a
representative, a fomily )giend, or a victim of someone before the court. This group
has direct knowledge of the routine activities o f a court. The last constituency con-
sists ofjudicial officers, other employees of the court system, and lawyers--both within
and outside the jurisdiction of the trial court--who may have an 'Tnside"perspec-
tive on how well the court is performing. The trust and cot~dence of all these con-
stit~tencies are essential to trial courts. (BJA, 1997, p. 20)
Trust and confidence in the service system for people in court will be engendered to
the extent that individuals in need of services and professionals from both the court and
service systems are satisfied with the system. If the system is perceived as ineffective,
cumbersome, unfair, costly, or problematic in other ways, it likely will be bypassed or
used sporadically. This performance area recognizes the importance of obtaining feed-
20 ~ COURT RESPONSES TO INDIVIDUALS IN NEED OF SERVICES
<
,m
o
o
8
z~
K ~
a~
£
8 <
_ ~ ._ ~ ~ .o
~ ," r~ ~ ~ F: ~ . ~
o 0 ~ ~-~ ~ ~
~ ...: . ~ "'6 . o
s s g ~ .
~ L
0 ~ 0
b . 9
, ,.. ~ . . ~
":" '-u ~ . _ = . ~, ~ ..~ "~ ~ '~ . ~ ~ " o ~
. . . . ~ u . . o .~ " 2 ~ ' - . £
~ ' ~
0 O" ~- .~-
.~ E o o : . B
~ "~ 0 0 ~ . - -
• ~ ~ ~ i i ~ ~ -~°
-~, ,~ o ._o.~ ~ ~ o ~ : ~ ~ '-
"& '.-' c~ c:: ~ ' --E ~ ~ u ~ o ~ o ~ - - ~ . - ~ _ ~ - - ~ - ° i i ~ ° ° ~ ~ - ~ :
~ ~ o ~ ~ . =
< ~.~,~ = ~ o a ~ ~ S ~ - 4 ,-, v ~
GOAI.5 OF SERVICE COORDINATION: A COURT PERSI,ECFIVE ~ 21
L ~-~ ~.~
o
.:.: u ~ . = "
._,= ~ .~ ~ , ~
~ o ~ ~ 8 ' s ~ < ~ - ,~-~
E qJ
E,.£o~ ~.>
° - ~ < ~
~ . - s ~
~ -~ ~_~
g .= ~ ~ = .o g ._ r~ .= ~
• -= ~ ~,~ ~ ~ o~ ; u~
"-- ~ ~ 0 0
~-~ ~ ~. ~ - . : ,,
-5
..--- __ ~ ~ ~ ~-'
~,_ =~ , ,~ , , 9 ~ , ~ . - , ~ , , , ~ ~ . ~ ~ . ~
~ ' ' ~ o
~-~
~ " " ~ 8 ~
~, ~ - ~ ~ - ~
:== -~ ~= ~ . ~ ~ ~,
o ~> .
•
• - ~ ~ 0
~ - ~ . E _ ~
r~
£
~ 8
22 ~ COURT RESPONSES TO INDI\qDUALq IN NEED OF SER\qCF~S
back on the system from the perspective of the many different individuals involved in its
operation and its intended clients.
Some key public trust and confidence questions for courts and service agencies to
discuss are:
• What do judges, court staff,, service providers, attorneys, and, most importantly, clients
see as working well and needing improvement with regard to service coordination?
• Can the media be enlisted to build a broader constituency to address the service
needs of court populations?
• Can community volunteers be enlisted to assist with some aspects of service coordination?
• What are the community's perceptions of how well the systems are performing?
As noted in Chapter 1, this report defines service coordination broadly, and the key
questions for each performance area (see "Fable 2) illustrate how service coordination
issues are embedded throughout the court process. The next chapter describes an ap-
proach some courts are using to address these service coordination issues in a more com-
prehensive manner.
CHAPTER 3
T H E P R O B L E M - S O L V I N G A P P R O A C H
Chapter 2 discussed service coordination issues within the context of court performance
goals. It is important to note that the goals (e.g., equal access to relevant services in a
timely manner) are aspirational. Courts need to set specific objectives within those goals
in light of their local legal and service cultures and resources to ensure progress toward
the goals. They also have to determine the relative balance among the goals. For ex-
ample, if the court focuses only on timeliness, access may be threatened.
These are hard questions for courts. What makes them particularly challenging in
the service coordination area is that they are not questions that can be answered by a court
alone. To accomplish goals in this area, courts must reach out to other community entities.
Reaching out to other community entities to achieve goals is a hallmark of problem-
solving courts. Because these courts are particularly practiced in collaboration and ser-
vice coordination, they offer a starting point for identifying promising components of an
effective service coordination strategy that addresses the key service coordination ques-
tions. The promising components are presented in Chapter 4. For those who are less
familiar with the problem-solving approach, this chapter provides a brief overview.
COMMON FEATURES OF THE PROBLEM-SOLVING APPROACH
There are now several different types of problem-solving courts. Table 1 in Chap-
ter 1 lists some of the moreconamon versions: communi ty courts, domest icvio-
lence courts, drug courts, family courts, and mental health courts. In addition,
other variations such as reentry courts, tobacco courts, and youth courts seem to be
developing at a rapid pace. They focus on different target populations and vary
with respect to eligibility criteria, whether a plea or finding ofgt, ilt is necessary for
24 ~- COURT RESPONSES TO INDIX, qDUAI.S IN NEED OF SER\OCES
obtaining services, the length of court supervision, and so forth. Even within a prob-
lem-solving court category, such as drug courts, considerable variation in methods and
procedures exists.
Despite the variation, problem-solving courts do share some common elements.
Berman and Feinblatt (2001, pp. 8-9) identify five commonalities: (a) case out-
comes--a focus on achieving "tangible outcomes for victims, for offenders and for
society," (b) system change--re-engineering "how government systems respond to
problems like addiction, mental illness and child neglect," (c) judicial authority--
"the active use of judicial authority to solve problems and to change the behavior of
litigants," (d) collaboration--a reliance "on both government and non-profit part-
ners (criminal justice agencies, social service providers, community groups and oth-
ers) to help achieve their goals," and (e) non-traditional roles alterations of the
traditional adversarial process.
These common features are evidenced to varying degrees in the different types of
problem-solving courts. The remainder of this chapter describes some specific prob-
lem-solving courts.
JUVENILE COURTS" AN EARLY PROTOTYPE OF THE
PROBLEM-SOLVING APPROACH
Many features of the classic juvenile court are reminiscent of Berman and Feinblatt's
(2001) common elements of a problem-solving approach. Examples follow.
• Case outcomes. The problem-solving juvenile court sought scientific evaluations
for purposes of understanding the child and scientifically valid services aimed at
prevention and rehabilitation. This requirement for understanding the child evolved
into the familiar "intake" service of the juvenile court. The objectives of rehabilita-
tion and problem solving focused on effective outcomes: A particularly effective requirement has been the devising of an individual- ized, workable disposition plan beneficial to the juvenile involved, a sug- gested constructive solution to his problems [italics added]. Through its mea- surable goals, both parent and child, as well as the court and its staff, are able to evaluate the progress of the disposition. (Arthur, 1979, p. 35)
• System change. Early proponents of the juvenile court conclt, ded that it is "of the
utmost importance that there be attached to the court...a child study department,
where every child, before hearing, shall be subjected to a thorough psycho-physical
examination" (Mack, 1909, p. 120). Judge Mack's 1909 call for juvenile courts to
have access to clinical personnel became a deeply ingrained principle, evident in
THE PROBLEM-SOLVING APPROACH ~ 25
detail in the 1954 Standard, for Specialized Courts Dealing with Children (Children's
Bureau, 1978, p. 87). 7
• Judicial authori ty. Butts and Mitchell (2000, p. 175) describe the power of the
judge in the early juvenile court:
The informality and flexibility in juvenile court provided conscientious judges
with the freedom to intervene in the lives of troubled youths. If a youth's
circumstances seemed to pose merely the risk of future criminal behavior, the
court was empowered to act.
• Col labora t ion . The original strategy of the juvenile court movement was to develop
a partnership with the developing professions of social work, psychology, and sociol-
ogy. The juvenile court was to be "a legal tribunal where law and science, especially
the science of medicine and those sciences which deal with human behavior, such as
biology, sociology, and psychology, work side by side" (Children's Bureau, 1978, p. 1).
• Non- t rad i t iona l roles. Because of the importance placed on outcomes in the juve-
nile court, the adversarial orientation typical of most court proceedings was diminished:
Proceedings on behalf of children in these courts are nonadversary in nature
and the court must be permitted to operate with informality and flexibility
as far as possible consistent with the protection of the rights of individuals
coming before it. Failure to permit this would negate the basic principles
underlying the philosophy of these courts. (Children's Bureau, 1978, p. 5)
During the latter half of the last century, the discretion of the juvenile court was
eroded quite dramatically, prompting Butts and Mitchell (2000) to conclude, "There
can be little remaining doubt that the boundary between juvenile justice and criminal
justice has become less meaningful than originally envisioned by the founders of the
juvenile court" (p. 202). Butts and Mitchell suggest that a new integrated court process
be established within the criminal justice system to address the particular needs of youth
in the system. ~ Ironically, they reference problem-solving courts as a potential model for
7 The Standards for Specialized Courts Dealing with Children, prepared by the Children's Bureau, U.S. De- partment of Health, Education and \v-c'elfiare in cooperation with the National Probation and Parole Associa- tion and the National Council of Juvenile Court Judges classically describes the juvenile court. Published in 1954 and reprinted in 1962 and 1978, the Standards have roots in the 1923 Children's Bureau publication Juvenile Court Standards.
One of the project's field research sites, the Manhattan Youth Part in New York, has some of the (eatures of an integrated court process for youth in the criminal justice system. Eligible youth have an opportunity to participate in an alternative to incarceration program that involves a treatment plan to address the youth's specific needs. The Court monitors the youth's adherence to the plan and reviews the case every three weeks. See Corriero (1999) for more information on the program.
26 ~ COURT RESPONSES TO |NDI\qDUMS IN NEED OF SERVICFS
the integrated court process--recognizing the link between the values of the original
juvenile court and those of problem-solving courts today.
Among the modern versions of problem-solving courts, the drug court is the most
established. It serves as an illustration of" the contemporary problem-solving approach.
DRUG COURTS: A CONTEMPORARY MODEL OF THE
PROBLEM-SOLVING APPROACH
Drug courts began appearing in the late 1980's in response to the dramatic rise in court
caseloads involving drug offenses (The National Association of Drug Court Profession-
als Drug Court Standards Committee, 1997). Some drug courts focus primarily on
expedited case processing to relieve congested court dockets. However, a number of
drug courts fall under the category of drug treatment courts (DTCs). These courts
emphasize treatment as a potential strategy for addressing recidivistic behaviors common
to substance abuse cases:
In recognizing the physical and mental health components of this problem,
DTCs attempt to combine the traditional processes of our criminal justice sys-
tem with those of the drug treatment community to create judicially initiated
treatment solutions for a certain class of drug offenders. This synthesis of thera-
peutic treatment and the judicial process stand at the core of the DTC concept.
(Hora, Schma, & Rosenthal, 1999, p. 453)
Generally, the drug court treatment programs "divert defendants who have been
charged with, or pied guilty to, a drug-related offense to a court-monitored substance
abuse treatment program" (Casey, 1994, p. 118). Different versions of the DTC model
exist, but Belenko (1998, pp. 6-7) notes that they usually entail:
• judicial supervision of structured community-based treatment;
• timely identification of defendants in need of treatment and referral to treatment as soon as possible after arrest;
• regular status hearings before the judicial officer to monitor treatment progress and program compliance;
• increasing defendant accountability through a series of graduated sanctions and rewards;
• mandatory periodic drug testing.
The Drug Courts Program Office (The National Association of Drug Court Profes-
sionals Drug Court Standards Committee, 1997) has promulgated ten key components
to define DTCs. The components emphasize the partnership necessary between the
THE PROBLEM-SoLVING APPROACH ~ 27
criminal justice system and the community's treatment providers--an emphasis of the
early juvenile court, as discussed above. The components are consistent with many of
the court performance goals discussed in Chapter 2. For example:
• Access. Key Component #4 requires that services be accessible For those persons
with disabilities, not fluent in English, not literate, and so forth.
• Expedit ion and Timeliness. Key Componen t #3 requires the early identifica-
tion of eligible participants to ensure early intervention once an individual has
been arrested.
• Equality, Fairness, and Integrity. Key Component #4 calls for an assessment of
the individual when he or she enters the program and periodic assessments thereaf-
ter to ensure the individual receives appropriate services. Treannent services should
respond to the specific needs of each DTC participant.
• Independence and Accountability. Key Component #8 demands that drug courts
gather and manage information to monitor and evakmte program effectiveness.
• Public Trust and Confidence. Key Component #10 requires drug courts to form
partnerships to help ensure local support and program effectiveness. "As a part o f - -
and as a leader in- - the formation and operation of community partnerships, drug
courts can help restore public faith in the criminal justice system" (The National Asso-
ciation of Drug Court Professionals Drug Court Standards Committee, 1997, p. 16).
Analysis of the key components reveals many other links to court performance goals.
Of particular importance for this report is the integration of service-related issues through-
out the DTC process. The DTC incorporates service coordination into all of its work
and hence all aspects of court performance; service coordination is not something done
on the side, in isolation, or at one point in the process.
OTHER APPLICATIONS OF THE PROBLEM-SOLVING APPROACH
?is already noted, the problem-solving approach has been adapted for other court caseloads.
Brief descriptions of some of these follow.
Family Cour ts . One of its more common applications is in family courts. Family
members often appear in different courts for different cases. As a result, the potential for
conflicting orders and fragmented or duplicative services for the family increases. In
response, some jurisdictions have created comprehensive family courts to promote a
more coordinated and effective response to families involved in the court system. These
courts emphasize the need to work with the community to ensure the availability and
provision of needed services.
28 ~- COURT RESI'ONSF.S TO INDIVIDUALS IN NEED OF SERVICES
Much has been written about family courts, the particular subject matter jurisdic-
tion they encompass, and the particular forms that they take (American Bar Association
Center for Continuing Legal Education, 1998; Babb, 1998; Burhans, 1998; Page, 1993).
Ross (1998, p. 5) summarized many of the features of family courts into four critical
components: (1) comprehensive jurisdiction of all intrafamilial matters, (2) structure
and administration that focuses on tbe one family, one judge/team approach, (3) special-
ized training in family-related issues, and (4) the delivery of comprehensive services.
C o m m u n i t y Courts. These courts focus primarily on low-level, "quality of life"
crimes (e.g., prostitution, shoplifting, minor drug possession, disorderly conduct).
Rottman, Efkeman, & Casey (1998) report that the Midtown Community Court in
New York, "mobilized local residents, businesses, and social service providers to collabo-
rate with the criminal justice system by developing and supervising community service
projects and by providing drug treatment, health care, education, and other services to
defendants" (p. 87). '~
Domest ic Violence Courts. During the last decade, the number of domestic
violence filings in state courts increased exponentially (Levey, Steketee, & Keilitz, 2000).
These increases were accompanied by a variety of efforts to improve the processing of
these cases and better insure victim safety and batterer accountability--including the
development of specialized dockets and calendars that focus on an integrated commu-
nit,/justice response to the problems prompting involvement in the court system. ~0
Mental Health Courts. The focus of these courts is on individuals with a mental
illness who have committed minor offenses. The first mental health court was estab-
lished in Broward County, Florida in 1997 (Mental Health Task Force Fiscal and Data
Subcommittee, 1998). The court was initiated as a result of discussions among local
criminal justice officials, mental health providers, and community leaders about the in-
effectiveness of the criminal justice system in addressing misdemeanor defendants with a
mental illness. Because these defendants were not receiving treatment and support ser-
vices, they often returned to court, sometimes charged with more serious offenses. The
Mental Health Court was developed to link this population with needed services in an
expedited manner and to monitor individual defendants' progress with regard to their
treatment plans. J~
For more information on communi ty courts, see Center for Court Innovation (1997), Feinblatt and Berman (1997), and Lee (2000).
10 For more information on domestic violence courts, see Fritzler and Simon (2000) and Keilitz (2000).
H For more information on mental health courts, see Goldkamp and lrons-Guynn (2000). Information about the Broward County, Florida, Mental Health Court is available on-line at http://www.co.broward.fl.us/ojss/ jsiO0300.html..
THE PROBLEM-Soi),qNG APPROACH 1~ 29
Reent ry Cour ts . One of the latest versions of the problem-solving approach is the
reentry court. These courts focus on prisoner reentry into the community following
incarceration. Many individuals returning home from prison have substance abuse prob-
lems, a mental illness, no job skills, little education, and so forth. Reentry courts help to
marshal community resources that provide employment, counseling, education, health,
mental health, and other essential services to support successful reintegration (Reno,
2000; Travis, 2000). As is evident from these various examples, service coordination is a core value of
problem-solving courts. Each court highlights the importance of addressing service co-
ordination issues as an ongoing court activity and not an activity that is performed only
at certain stages of the process. This is consistent with the service coordination goals
discussed in Chapter 2. The next chapter offers a strategy that includes nine promising
components for addressing service coordination issues more comprehensively.
CHAPTER 4
P R O M I S I N G C O M P O N E N T S FOR EFFECTIVE
C O U R T - B A S E D SERVICE C O O R D I N A T I O N
"lt shouldn't be so hard to get help. It shouldn't be so hard to get treatment, h shouldn't be so hard to get services. "' Mental Health Court Judge to defendant with mental illness ,2
"['he Court's reorganization "recogTlizes that courts are becoming more social ser- vice oriented in nature by the denmna~/needs o f the public or by defitult because the court # the place o f last resort for help. "Court Administrator 1~
This chapter discusses nine promising components of a service coordination strategy.
The components offer ideas and suggestions for addressing the key service questions
posed across the court performance goals presented in Chapter 2. The components are
derived from innovative practices observed across study sites and discussed in the literature.
Consistent with the orientation that service coordination is a comprehensive court
activity and thus does not occur only at certain stages of the court process, the compo-
nents address both policy-level and individual-case level issues. Jurisdictions have the
option to adapt one component to improve current coordination in a particular area or
may use the entire list of components to systematically build a comprehensive approach
to service coordination. Because each jurisdiction's local legal and service cultures and
resources vary, it is expected that jurisdictions will modify the generic components to
best fit their needs.
*: Discussion between Judge Lerner-Wren and defendant during observation of Mental Heahh Court proceed- ings, November 18, 1999, in Broward Count)', Florida. u Correspondence from Mr. Robert A. Houtman, Court Administrator, Ninth Judicial Circuit Court in Kalamazoo, Michigan to project staff, March 18, 1999.
32 ~ COURT RESPONSES TO INDI\qDUAI.S 1N NEED OF SERV1Ct'kS
PROMISING COMPONENT 1: ACKNOWLEDGED COURT ROLE
IN SERVICE COORDINATION
There is debate about the appropriate role of courts in service-related issues. In practice,
judges and court staffdefine their role on an individual basis, ranging from "hands-off"
to complete involvement. This lack of clarity in court policy with regard to service issues
results in inconsistent judicial practices across the bench that threaten equality and fair-
ness. It also creates confusion for service providers regarding their expected communi-
cations with the court and their responsibilities. The confusion consequently affects the
access, timeliness, and integrity of sewices. Court independence and accountability
also are affected by a court's lack of guidance in establishing its service coordination
role. Courts may overstep their role in these issues and threaten their relations with the
other branches of government, or they may ignore their role altogether creating ac-
countability problems.
Although no jurisdiction specifies the court's service coordination role in detail,
some jurisdictions have acknowledged the role in statutes, court rules, mission state-
ments, or other task force and special issue documents. This acknowledgement provides
some guidance and justification for courts as they become involved in service issues.
In Kentucky, for example, the expression of the court's role in service coordination
is found in a Mission Statement (Kentucky Rules of Court, 1997, p. 469). The Mission
Statement encourages the judge and court personnel to focus on outcomes and resolu-
tions of long-term problems. It makes explicit the expectation that it is appropriate for
the court to recommend or order specific services to remedy causes of family dysfunction
and not limit itself to adjudication of a specific legal issue. The Statement recognizes
that traditional court processes can create new barriers within families and exacerbate
existing problems; accordingly, the use of alternative dispute resolution is encouraged. .4
In Oregon, the Legislative Assembly articulated a clarifying policy in statute. Each
presiding judge is mandated to adopt a plan to coordinate the provision of services to
families involved in domestic relations or other family court proceedings (Family Law
Act, 1997, .~ 3.434). The law includes the requirement that the court convene advisory
,4 Mission Statement of the Jefferson Family Court (Kentucky Rules of Court, 1997, p. 469): A. The Court strives to transcend the traditional adjudicatog, function and adversarial process and to
look beyond the immediate crisis, fashioning remedies and orders designed to minimize future court involvement.
B. Cognizant of the fact that traditional legal approaches may create new barriers to relationships and exacerbate problems within families, the court encourages alternative dispute resolution, and, as appropriate, recommends or orders counseling, self-help and other available, suitable governmental and community services.
PROMISING COMPONENTS FOR EFFECTIVE COURT-BASED SERVICE COORDINATION 1~ 33
groups of service providers and funding bodies. Plans developed under this mandate
clarify in detail the respective responsibilities and expectations of the court and the com-
munity providers.
In Broward County, Florida, policy clarification regarding court coordination of
services is found in an Administrative Order establishing the Mental Health Court. The
Order relates to cases involving individuals accused of committing a misdemeanor and
who suffer from mental illness or mental retardation. The Order provides that the judge
of the court will "coordinate the role of the judiciary with the functions of the state and
local service agencies that are responsible for treatment and supervision of mentally ill or
otherwise handicapped individuals" (Administrative Order No. VI-97-I-1A, 1997).
In Massachusetts, policy clarification arises from the Supreme Judicial Court through
its Standing Committee on Substance Abuse. A Policy Statement (Supreme Judicial
Court, 1995) frames expectations that judges and court staff should:
• be proactive in identifying substance abuse by any party; • educate themselves about the dynamics of substance abuse and effective recovery
interventions;
• make substance abuse treatment available at every turn in the case; and
• forge collaborative relationships between the court and treatment providers.
These examples of court policy emerge in the context of a specific policy concern in
each locality: family concerns in Kentucky and Oregon, mental health cases in Florida,
and substance abuse in Massachusetts. It is timely for courts to consider an explicit
policy framework for the court as a whole to clarify the appropriateness of judges and
court staff engaging proactively with service issues, while establishing guidelines and
limits on those interactions.
A clear policy that acknowledges expectations regarding the court's role in service coordination creates a strong foundation upon which to build the operating framework
for cot, rt and service agency interactions. Effective leadership is then needed to imple-
ment the interactions that span the boundaries between the court and its service providers.
PROMISING COMPONENT 2: JUDICIAL AND COURT LEADERSHIP
The importance ofjt, dicial leadership in achieving quality court performance, whenever
"boundary spanning" issues are at stake, emerged initially and prominently in studies of
reducing delay in courts (Mahoncy, 1988; Hewitt, Gallas, & Mahoney, 1990).
[l]t is clear that most of the successful cot, rts have had the benefit of leader
ship by a chief judge with vision, persistence, personality, and political skills
necessary to develop broad support for court policies and programs .... By the /
same token, the absence of strong leadership...was frequently cited by
34 ~- COURT RESPONSES TO INDIVIDUALS IN NEED OF SERVICES
practitioners...as a prime reason for the lack of attention to the problem of
delay. (Mahoney, 1998, p. 198)
The importance of leadership in achieving quality in court performance is now a
generally accepted principle. In a study of the relationship between court structural
arrangements and court performance generally, Rottman and Hewitt (1996) found that
court "outsiders" (social service providers prominent among that group) consistently
and "often with great vehemence" expressed frustration that no one represents the bench
in "discussions about problems that affect the entire justice system" (p. 86). The au-
thors concluded: "In our view, responding to and taking leadership in, such 'boundary spanning'problems is a basic component of any chief judge and any trial court manager [italics added] "(p. 86).
This boundary spanning role is acknowledged in the Trial Court Performance
Standards:
In matters for which the trial court may have no direct responsibility but none-
theless may help identify problems and shape solutions, the trial court takes
appropriate actions to inform responsible individuals, groups, or entities about
the effects of these matters on the judiciary and about possible solutions. (BJA,
1997, p. 20). Effective court leadership is not restricted to the chief judge. The trial court man-
ager, the presiding judges of court divisions, and the departmental administrative man-
agers effectively apply leadership skills. Court leadership is essential for maintaining the
coordination and financial support necessary for court-related service initiatives and daily
activities. It is key to fruitful interactions between the judicial and service systems and a
necessary component of a quality service delivery system for court populations.
For this study, interviewees in jurisdictions where courts have consciously initiated
efforts to coordinate court and service agency interactions were asked why the court's
approach to service coordination works. Inevitably, respondents within and outside the
courthouse named a judicial leader committed to making coordination work. In juris-
dictions where various reform efforts began outside the courthouse doors, those involved
in the efforts noted that the reforms "did not have legs" until a judge was willing to
champion the effort. The prestige of the bench lent credibility to the effort.
A clear articulation of court policy relating to court and service agency interactions
creates a foundation for court leadership in implementing strategies, and effective court
leaders build upon that foundation through strategies of inclusion. While a champion
judge is necessary for reform of court and service agency interactions, judges cannot
implement cross-system improvements on their own. Judicial involvement brings cred-
ibility and other stakeholders to the table.
In summary, the exercise of leadership involves the following elements: (1) clear
articulation of goals by the person in charge; (2) clear communication of the goal and the
PROMISING COMPONENTS FOR EFFECTIVE COURT-BASED SERVICE COORDINATION ~'. 35
will to achieve it; (3) diplomatic and prudent recognition of, and deference to, the exper-
tise and territorial concerns of leaders; (4) cultivation of expanded leadership support;
and (5) exercise of authority to ratify and act on consensus decisions of a group of
community leaders. The first two of these elements serve as a foundation for building
leadership, and the last three elements use leadership to build a common cause with
other stakeholders.
PROMISING COMPONENT 3: AN ACTIVE POLICY COMMITTEE
OF STAKEHOLDERS
Most of the sites that were studied had some type of formal or informal policy commit-
tee in place to discuss issues of relevance to all entities involved in providing services to
court populations. The committees varied in terms of structure, members, and specific
tasks, but they all had the common goal of establishing better communications between
and among various system components involved in service coordination. An effective cross-
systems committee exhibits comity and produces positive results for timeliness, quality, fair-
ness, and accountability of services, and, consequently, satisfaction with those services.
Stakeholder committee tasks vary by mission. Sometimes the mission of the com-
mittee is initially narrow and grows during implementation. Sometimes the mission is
broad and gradually becomes more focused. The broader the mission, the more appro-
priate it is for the committee to be comprised of members from the highest policy level
- - the leaders of the justice system and the service agencies. As focus becomes more
specific, formation of subcommittees or task groups that include line supervisors and
staffbecome more appropriate and effective. These subcommittees are likely to focus on
problematic procedural issues related to inter-organizational communication and bound-
ary spanning operations. Personnel who are familiar with operational detail deal best
with these issues.
In some instances, jurisdictions have one large committee consisting of both agency
leaders and representative line staff of the major service and justice system components.
This larger committee is divided into subcomnfittees to address specific issues. When
agency or department leaders meet separately to discuss broader system issues and the
line staff have their own meetings to discuss specific operational issues, sometimes a
representative from the line staffwill attend both meetings to ensure coordination be-
tween levels.
The Criminal Justice Cabinet of Sacramento, California, offers one of the best ex-
amples of an effective and institutionalized policy committee. It was conceived in 1991
when local justice system leaders "recognized the need for and desirability of a coordi-
nated leadership body to provide cohesive public policy and programming across the
36 ~ COURT RESPONSI,2S TO INDIVIDUALS IN NEED OF SERVICES
many agencies, departments and organizations responsible for the areas criminal justice
system" (Criminal Justice Cabinet, 2000, p. 4). Its members include: The Presiding
Judge, Superior Court; the Presiding Judge, Juvenile Court; a judge of the Superior Court;
the Sheriff; District Attorney; Public Defender; Chief Probation Officer; the Mayors of
the surrounding cities; the Chief of Police; a member of the Board of Supervisors; the
County Executive; the Sacramento City Manager; the Administrator, Public Protection
and Human Assistance Agency; the Director, Department of Human Assistance; Direc-
tor, Department of Health and Human Services; the Director, Department of Medical
Schools; and the California Legislative Delegation for Sacramento. The Cabinet in-
cludes an Executive Committee, five subcommittees, and full-time staff, and has an an-
nual budget allocated from the Sacramento County general funds. The Cabinet meets
regularly "not only to discuss and implement approaches to common issues that arise in
the conventional processing of adult and juvenile cases, but also to develop fresh ideas
involving prevention, rehabilitation, alternative sentencing, community involvement,
and information technology" (Criminal Justice Cabinet, 2000, p. 1). The Cabinet uses
its funds as seed money to support local initiatives to address deficiencies in the system.
Although the Sacramento example is more formal than most policy committees, it is a
good illustration of the kinds of members and activities that jurisdictions can consider
when initiating their own committees.
Component 3 refers to boundary spanning and coordination at the policy and op-
erational procedure level. When line supervisors or staff meet to discuss specific cases,
the focus moves beyond coordination of administration and planning to coordinated
case action - the very thing that all of the preceding components are designed to enable.
PROMISING COMPONENT 4: CASE-LEVEL SERVICE COORDINATORS
Service coordination for court populations involves "exchanges" of information and in-
dividuals across boundaries . The boundaries can be within the courts themselves (e.g.,
juvenile courts, family courts, criminal courts) or within large executive branch agencies
(e.g., divisions of health, mental health, income assistance, children's services). The bound-
aries can also be those that separate courts, executive agencies, and not-for-profit service
providers. The efficiency with which these exchanges are accomplished affects the timeli-
ness, integrity, and continuity of service provision. As the number of individuals involved in
these exchanges increases, so does complexity and the possibility of miscommunication
(or non-communication) within and across the various courts and service providers.
Jurisdictions take different approaches to overcome the problems resulting from
many individuals involved in multiple exchanges concerning the same and related cases.
The most traditional approach is the use of a court officer to follow a case through the
PROMISING COMPONENTS FOR EFFECHVE COURT-BASED SERVICE COORDINATION 1~ 37
pre- and post-sentencing phases, "broker" services when needed, and coordinate infor-
mation about the individual's status and progress. With the advent of courts designed to
address specific problems such as drug use, mental illness, domestic violence, or juvenile
violence, a focus on service coordination at the front-end of the system is being added as
well. This front-end focus is particularly vital for coordinating services across multiple,
related parties involved in multiple, related cases (e.g., domestic relations, juvenile, do-
mestic violence, criminal). Rubin and Flango (1992) address this issue in the context of
family cases:
As important as the procedural coordination of family cases may be, and it
is important , it pales in significance to the importance of the effective
coordination of substantive services ordered by the court. The fragmentation
and unplanned duplication of child and family services for family members
who are the subject of a court order is a bottomless, perverse, and polymor-
phous pit. (p. 72)
The line between pre- and post-disposition coordination is not a bright one; one
blends into the other. Coordination at the pre-disposition stage involves ensuring judi-
cial access to high quality factual data and evaluative opinion regarding services to all
related parties. This information allows the judge to craft orders that do not conflict and
appropriately speak to the issues. Coordination at the post-disposition stage involves
ensuring that the services required to successfully implement the provisions of orders are
available and delivered. Optimally, both aspects of case-level service coordination are
robustly developed in a program of court-based service coordination.
Effective case-level service coordination requires the involvement of individu-
als familiar with both the legal and service arenas. Steadman (1992) refers to these
coordinators as boundary spanners and discusses them in the context of jail mental
health programs:
Whether we were examining jail diversion programs, screening and evaluation
procedures upon booking, jail crisis intervention programs, or case manage-
ment services~ one factor kept appearing among the better programs--there
always was a core position that directly managed the interactions between the
correctional, mental health, and judicial staff. These positions tended to have
strong similarities, even if their particular job titles, positions in their organiza-
tional charts, and their incumbents' training and experiences did not. What all
of the incumbents of these positions did one way or another was to interact on
a daily basis with the mental health and corrections staff at the jail and the
judicial staff in the courts. The incumbents had carved out niches in their or-
ganizations that depended upon a special set of skills they had acquired to
smoothly, albeit carefully, crosswalk the three, often competing, systems of cor-
rections, mental health, and the courts. (p. 76)
38 1~. COURT RF~PONSF, S TO INDIVIDUALS IN NEED OF SERVICF.S
Based on his observations of these positions across numerous jurisdictions, Steadman
concluded that there is no one best model of boundary spanner:
Location choice depends upon local politics, history, economics, and
personalities .... Ifa boundary spanner position is developed, the particular source
of the revenue for it and its organizational niche are much less significant than
is a clear conceptualization of what its functions are, the selection of the right
incumbent, and the securing of money from any source to fund it. (p. 84)
Individuals who serve as case service coordinators are known by a variety of titles in
different jurisdictions. Classically, probation intake and supervision officers serve the
role of case coordinator in many courts; the positions might also be known as Resource
Coordinator (Midtown Community Court in New York, New York), Family Court Sup-
port Worker (Jefferson County Family Court, Louisville, Kentucky), or Family Court
Advocate (Integrated Family Court, Deschutes County, Oregon).
Some service coordinators are court employees, and some are service agency em-
ployees. Some jurisdictions have both: a court employee to liaise with service agencies
and service agency representatives to liaise with the court (Flango, Flango, Rubin, 1999).
Boundary spanners in the context of court-based service coordination include teams
as well as individuals. Team resources are used for bringing together substantive infor-
mation on legal history, personal background, and clinical experience with individuals
and family members; such teams generally also participate in framing disposition and
treatment plans. When a team approach is used, such as the Family Advocate Screening
Team (FAST) and multidisciplinary treatment team found in the Integrated Family Court
in Deschutes County, Oregon, it is still necessary for purposes of accountability and
efficiency to have a single individual responsible for documenting and monitoring imple-
mentation of decisions made by the team.
The effectiveness of individuals and teams that provide case-level service coordina-
tion is directly related to what they know about the range and quality of available services. If
mandates or policy initiatives seeking provision of quality treatment and services are to have
any practical meaning on a case-by-case basis, court officials, attorneys, mental health per-
sonnel, social service personnel, law enforcement officers, and others involved in the
process must have access to current information about available facilities and resources.
PROMISING COMPONENT 5: CENTRALIZED ACCESS TO SERVICE NETWORK
The maze of service providers and available programs ill a community can be daunting
even to those who are familiar with the service community. The range of programs of-
fered, program components, eligibility requirements, and fees are just some of the factors
that can contribute to confusion in identifying appropriate services for an individual.
PROMISING COMPONENrFS FOR EFFECTIVE COURT-BASED SERVICE COORDINATION ~ 39
How do case coordinators find out about new service providers? How does the community
know what services are duplicated across several providers and what services are nonexist-
ent? A central resource is needed to provide current information about available services
in a jurisdiction to help ensure the timely access and delivery of appropriate services.
The resource can take different forms--printed, electronic, human, or some combina-
t i on -a s described in the following examples, but it is crucial that the resource be a consis-
tent source of accurate and reliable information on a wide variety of services. When organiz-
ing to create a resource directory in particular, several dimensions need to be considered:
• Scope of the information resource. Is the directory intended to be statewide, re-
gional, or local? If local courts and collaborating agencies rely on existing statewide
or regional directories, how well do the directories serve local purposes?
• Intended user. is the directory a resource for professionals or for direct recipients of
services? A resource may vary in design, specific content, and tone depending on
the target audience for the director),. Resources designed for professionals can use
technical language and be more efficient about agency-to-agency communications
regarding treatment services and available expertise. They also can incorporate in-
formation supplied by other professional users of particular services in the form of
references or other inter-agency evaluative techniques. These characteristics are not
likely to be incorporated into resource guides for direct service recipients.
• Accuracy and reliability. Are there procedures in place to ensure that the resource
serves its intended purpose? Several requirements need to be met to ensure utility,
accuracy, and reliability of published hard copy or electronic resource guides. These
include:
- a standard format and procedure for providing information to be included in the guide;
- a procedure for review and follow-up of information submitted for inclusion in
the guide to provide quality control for content, completeness, and clarity of entries;
- a procedure for validation and evaluation of service availability and consistency
with published information; and
- a procedure for keeping resource directory information current.
The process of developing a resource guide in a community offers an important
ancillary benefit, which is the opportunity to systematically survey the service needs of
professionals in the commt, nity and respond to deficiencies in resources. "The develop-
ment of the guide may help to identify gaps in the contint, um of services as well as
facilitate use of existing services" (National Center for State Courts, 1986, p. 424).
While the most familiar approach to development of central resource guides is
a written directory of services, other strategies are possible and should be considered.
These include on-line directories, neighborhood resource centers, and courthouse
resource centers.
40 1~. COURT RESPONSI-kS TO INDIVIDUALS IN NEED OF SER\qCES
O n - l i n e Director ies . One example of an on-line directory is from Kentucky. It is
jointly maintained by the Cabinet for Families and Children, the Cabinet for Health
Services, and the Cabinet for Workforce Development. This resource directory is state-
wide in its orientation, and its sophistication reflects the resources available to state agen-
cies. It allows a user to search for services in different ways. One way that is especially
friendly to the person with the problem is to respond to inter-active questions about the
nature of the problem or problems for which help is sought. Another way is to search by
specific services (e.g., counseling, emergency health care, food, substance abuse treat-
ment) and/or geographic region. Service providers can update information about their
programs, and new providers can add information on-line. The Directory has over 18,000
provider listings and 45,000 service listings, and may be reviewed at h t tp : / /
resourcedirectory.state.ky.us/default.asp.
Neighborhood Resource Centers . A more direct mechanism for sharing service
information is to house multiple service organizations or at least their intake services in
one location. One such example is The Neighborhood Place in Louisville, Kentucky,
which offers families a common point of intake for a variety of services such as health,
mental health, employment, and social services. The representatives work together to
serve families as a coordinated system. Thus, information on services and their availabil-
ity is shared, improving access to appropriate services and avoiding duplication and frag-
mentation of services. Such centers provide a convenient point of contact for court
officials to maintain contact with service agency professionals through case interactions
(see Promising Component 4). The service centers also offer focal points for launching
and maintaining community advisory committees and task forces.
Courthouse Resource Centers . A variation on neighborhood resource centers is
the co-location of a resource center and the court facility---essentially moving The Neigh-
borhood Place model described above inside the courthouse doors. The obvious advan-
tage of this arrangement is that referrals or mandates for services can be carried out
immediately. When the referrals are for diagnostic or exploratory purposes, in fact,
service connections and feedback to the court regarding immediate results of interven-
tions can be accomplished before the person has completed her or his "day in court."
One example of such an initiative is found in The Midtown Community Court in New
York City. The court's sixth floor houses representatives of a wide variety of services to
respond to defendants' needs with regard to substance abuse, housing, health, educa-
tion, employment, and so forth (Sviridoff, Rottman, Ostrom, & Curtis, 1997). The
representatives, in turn, are connected to a wider network of service providers in the
community. Information about services is shared easily among the various service rep-
resentatives and with the court's resource coordinator, who makes service recommenda-
tions for each case to the judge. This may all be accomplished before releasing the
individual from the court's custody.
PROMISING COMPONENTS FOR EFFECTIVE COURT-BASED SERVICE COORDINATION 1~ 41
Knowledge of available resources, whether through directories or resource centers,
is the foundation for securing effective pre-disposition diagnostics and post-disposition
interventions. But extending success on paper (achieving a correct understanding of the
problem and a disposition order to match) to a successful intervention and an actual
therapeutic outcome, requires compliance with and monitoring of the court order to
ensure that what is intended to happen actually does happen.
PROMISING COMPONENT 6: ACTIVE COURT MONITORING OF
COMPLIANCE WITH ORDERS
Active monitoring of compliance with court orders is a critical component of an effective
service coordination system. Without it, the integrity of a court's orders and implemen-
tations of plans designed to remedy problems that contributed to a person's involvement
in the court system are left to chance. Resources spent at the front end of the system to
identify problems and match individuals with appropriate services are wasted if the ser-
vices are not subsequently accessed and delivered in a timely manner. Trial Court Perfor-
mance Standard 3.5 "Responsibility for Enforcement" addresses the issue: "Courts should
not direct that certain actions be taken or be prohibited and then allow those bound by their
orders to honor them more in the breach than in the observance" (BJA, 1997, p. 16).
The trick), part for courts is to determine how to enforce orders that include provi-
sions (i.e., the delivery of services) falling under the responsibility of executive agencies
or private, not-for-profit service agencies. Although the executive branch or private, not-
for-profit agency is responsible for enforcing such provisions, Standard 3.5 also makes
clear that "no court should be unaware of or unresponsive to realities that cause its orders
to be ignored" (p. 16). Thus, the court has an obligation to find out whether its orders
have been enforced and, if not, why.
What are typical reasons for non-compliance? Some are the result of easily rem-
edied communication problems, such as the client not knowing where to go or writing
down the wrong time. Other reasons may relate to overburdened treatment resources.
For example, the unavailability of rooms in the designated treatment facility results in a
technical breach of compliance with the court order. In other cases, the client is respon-
sible for deliberate noncompliance. The court can take action in all of these cases, either
directly, by requiring better procedures to enst, re accurate communication or by issuing
sanctions, or more indirectly, by meeting with service agencies' heads (perhaps through a
stakeholder committee as discussed under Promising Component 3) and determining
what can be done to ensure the availability of services.
Critical factors related to enforcement are clarity and specificity. To the extent that
orders are clear with regard to specific services and timelines, compliance by parties and
service agencies is easier to achieve, and is easier for the court to monitor.
42 1~ COURT RESPONSES TO INDIVIDUALS IN NEED OF SERVICES
How much specificity should court orders include? In practice, this will depend
on many factors, including the judge's expertise and the information she has about
the party and the programs and services that are available. Some judges prefer to
order an individual to a service agency and allow the agency to determine the best
plan. These judges do not consider themselves qualified to determine specific treat-
ment plans or services and prefer that service professionals make those determina-
tions. This approach gives more control to the service provider, and the court needs to
be particularly vigilant in ensuring that the client is provided services and is progress-
ing. In addition, when the court relies on service providers to structure service plans, it
is critical that the court at least clarify the objectives of the treatment referral in the
order. What does the court expect the agency to do? What will count as compliance on
the part of the person referred?
Other judges make it a point to find out about various treatment facilities and feel
qualified to order specific programs. A potential concern is that the judge has too much
control in deciding service issues, without the corresponding expertise.
Potential weaknesses in both extremes of judicial involvement - too little service
specificity in orders or too much specificity--are lessened to the extent that the court's
service coordination before the point of issuing an order has been effective. Assuming
the case-level service coordinators (see Promising Componen t 4) have done their
work well, the service providers and the party will have a good sense of what the
court's expectations are when a referral is made to an agency for the design and
execution of a service plan. Judges should also have a good base of information about
available and appropriate services to include in an order, when that level of specificity
appears to be appropriate.
One of the best ways to determine whether the order was clear and the ser-
vices rendered were beneficial to the client is to ask the client. By focusing on
pe r fo rmance - -were the ordered services actually available, did the client meet her
or his responsibilities to rake full advantage of the services, did the ordered ser-
vices conform to expectations, did the services have the intended consequences- -
the court can determine whether modifications in the way it specifies its orders
need to be made. Obviously, the client is not the only source of information, but
is often an overlooked and vital one. Direct questioning of the client, in addition
to reliance on service provider updates, will provide the court with a good barom-
eter of the effectiveness of service plans.
Some courts schedule a separate "compliance" calendar. This has been done in
juvenile, mental health, drug treatment and batterer intervention programs. Most pro-
gram case managers cannot be in court for lengthy periods, but can appear briefly at
regularly scheduled times. Exchanging information in court regarding compliance cre-
ates accountability for all involved.
PROMISING COMPONENTS FOR EFFECTIVE COURT-BASED SER\qCE COORDINATION ~ 43
PROMISING COMPONENT 7: ROUTINE COLLECTION AND USE OF DATA
The importance of routine and accurate collection of data that is properly preserved is an
ongoing theme in court performance and improvement literature, as it is in the literature
of public policy and management generally. 15 Mahoney (1988) identified "information"
as one often key elements that characterize successful courts: "In all of these [successful]
courts...some type of management information is collected - and used by the leadership
of the court - to monitor case processing times and identify problems before they be-
come crises" (p. 200).
Data is essential for self-assessment, which is the value chiefly emphasized by
Mahoney. In Courts That Succeed: Six Profiles of Successfid Courts, data collection and
analysis is likened to health monitoring and diagnosis; successful cot, rts have manage-
ment controls in the form of data collection and reporting that routinely "take the tem-
perature" of the court (Hewitt et al., 1990, p. vi). The routine collection and use of data
allow managers to monitor what is worki,lg and what ,leeds to be examined more closely
for potential problems. The act of measuring also identifies what is important both to
policymakers and to staff.
Implicit in calls for collecting data is the assumption that the data will be examined
and used evaluatively, activities that should not be taken for granted in public institt,-
tions. Mahoney (1988) emphasizes use of data as a requirement for management excel-
lence (as do Osborne and Gaebler, 1992) and notes as a "surprising" finding of his 1988
study that several of the courts studied collected data, but did not use it "to diagnose and
help devise solutions to problems" (p. 200). The Guidelines for Invoholtary Civil Com-
mitment (National Center for State Courts, 1986) propose that while courts and other
public service agencies may not have the resources for conducting research, they:
should collect and compile statistics on the functioning and results of the pro-
cesses for which they are responsible. The compilation of such statistics should
be considered a routine administrativefimction [italics added]. (p. 425)
Administrators of court service coordination efforts can utilize the data to determiqe
where a process or program is functioning properly and where it needs improvement.
In the context of demonstrating efficiency and effectiveness of service interventions
for court populations, there are special challenges. For example, in the court manage-
ment literature, descriptions of successful courts and their use of data for management
rarely consider areas of court performance that focus on providing non-adjudicatoty
services for court populations. The emphasis is on legal issue case processing and, within
that, on timeliness of case processing (as in the passages fiom Mahoney (1988) and Hewitt
,s See, for example, Osborne and Gaebler (1992, pp. 146-155).
44 1~. COURT RESPONSI-ZS 1"O INDIV1DUAI£ IN NEED OF SERV|CI-kS
et al. (1990) cited above). Courts traditionally do not compile information on individu-
als who use or are in need of its services, much less the services provided by system
partners. Courts, by design, strive to remain "blind" to the people who are subjects of
litigation - such blindness in fact is a traditional vah, e in courts. For courts, "individual
attention to cases," is not the same as "attention to individuals. " That a court would
need to know, and therefore collect, person-centered information (e.g., social security
numbers for cross-reference, race, gender, age, medical, and social history) is considered
anathema by many court professionals.
It is therefore important in dialogues between courts and their partners in service
agencies to be prepared for this "disconnect" and to understand that the conventional
wisdom of court management presumes that for the overwhelming majority of court
cases, information about people has little or no management significance. Thus, person-
centered record keeping is rare in court environments, and developing the capacity to
track persons requires system innovation and acceptance of a new paradigm.
A court that has embraced this new paradigm is the Midtown Communi ty Court in
New York. It's information system is based on the assumptions that (1) as much infor-
mation as possible should be available at the defendant's first appearance to help the
judge match the defendant with treatment and service programs, (2) the central database
should be accessible to everyone connected with the case simultaneously, and (3) the
database should be used to track the defendant's progress and monitor compliance with
the court's orders (Feinblatt & Berman, 1997, pp. 5-6). 16
Even without the person-centered focus, however, courts can collect case-level data
that will help increase their understanding of what's working and should be continued,
what's not working and should be stopped, what should be modified to make it work
better, and what should be started that doesn't currently exist. Typically, a court's mea-
surement strategy presupposes that "success" is indicated by process measures relating to
organizational efficiency (e.g., timeliness of case processing, low numbers of hearings,
low numbers of continuances) and effectiveness (e.g., low trial rates, high compliance
rates, low rates of recidivism). However, there are no direct measures of "success" in
terms of service coordination.
Data collection designed to improve understanding of court and service agency
interactions clearly requires a paradigm for monitoring administrative functions that
substantially expands traditional views of sound program administration. In determin-
ing what data to collect, courts can start with outcome questions. For example, courts
can adapt the five evaluation questions posed by Rossi, Freeman, and Wright (1979,
u, See Feinblatr and Berman (1999) for a dcscript_ion of the information technology systems employed in New York's community courts.
PROMISING COMPONENTS FOR EFFECTIVE COURT-BASED SERVICE COORDINATION ~ 45
p. 20) for human service programs to a court context. Questions are:
1. Is the intervention reaching the appropriate target population?
2. Is it being implemented in the ways specified?
3. Is it effective?
4. How much does it cost?
5. What are its costs relative to its effectiveness?
In terms of courts, the questions become what populations have access to services,
are orders with service provisions complied with, are the services effective, and so
forth--essentially the kinds of critical questions posed under each court perfor-
mance area discussed in Chapter 2. Courts are only beginning to collect data to
answer these kinds of questions.
PROMISING COMPONENT 8: CREATIVE USE OF RESOURCES
Funding for service-related initiatives for court populations tends to be ad hoc and
diffused. Courts and service agencies generally find it difficult to fund their core
responsibilities much less areas of shared responsibility. Thus finding funds for improv-
ing service coordination for court populations tends to be an exercise in creativity as
well as perseverance. Although the lack of funding presents problems, it also can have
the unintended benefit of "encouraging" various system players to work together who
might not otherwise.
Creative funding strategies among jurisdictions include piecing together funding
from a variety of sources such as Federal and private grants, state and local taxes, fines,
user fees, and pooled resources from several budgets. Partnerships among agencies are
often attractive to grant funding sources. Several states have some form of a not-for-
profit organization to accept donations to fund justice related programs. 17 Some juris-
dictions reassign work among staffto make coordination efforts possible, and some rely
on volunteer help. Some jurisdictions use the media to bring attention to particular
problems and build public support for various initiatives.
When the Jefferson Family Court was started in Louisville, Kentucky, there were
insufficient resources to cover all the new positions. Each of the six judges was slated to
have a social worker on staff, but the Administrative Office of the Courts had funding
for only two social workers. To overcome the problem, the Cabinet for Families and
Children, the state social services agency, and the Seven Counties Services, a local mental
,7 Personal communications with A. Skove of Knowledge Management Services, National Center for State Courts, February 2. 2001.
46 ~ COURT RESPONSI-kS TO INDIVIDUALS IN NEED OF SERVICES
health organization, "loaned" the other four social workers to the Court. These posi-
tions were gradually absorbed by the Administrative Office of the Court in subsequent
years. Similar strategies could apply to any local government unit or agency.
The effective use of volunteers to stretch resources is embodied in the well-known
Court Appointed Special Advocate (CASA) and other Guardian ad Litem (GAL) pro-
grams. Such programs can get their start from a variety of quarters. In Richland County,
South Carolina, the volunteer program began as an advisory board of the Junior League
with the support of the local Bar association and the Administrative Judge of the Family
Court. The program started with 15 volunteers and now includes a full-time staff of
eight, a part time staff of four and approximately 300 volunteers that represent over
1300 children. 18 GALs follow a child through the court process and make recommen-
dations on behalf of the child.
In Oregon, legislation that mandated creation of Family Court programs included a
Family Law Account to support innovative programs (Family Law Act, 1997, ¢3 3.440).
The Oregon Family Law Account provides that the fund administrator (the State Court
Administrator) may accept and deposit contributions of funds and assistance from any
source, public or private. Once authorized, a vehicle like the Family Law Account may
be used as a source of incentive funding by state policy bodies to encourage innovation
or replication of proven programs through demonstration grants.
PROMISING COMPONENT 9: TRAINING AND EDUCATION RELATED
TO SERVICE COORDINATION
There are fundamental differences between the justice and social service agency systems
with respect to system goals, service priorities, and language that contribute to poor
communication and conflict (Casey, Keilitz, & Hafemeister, 1992, p. 119). Judges do
not acquire the kind of specialized knowledge required to understand the working envi-
ronments of diagnostic and rehabilitative professionals by winning an election or gain-
ing an appointment to the bench. Therefore, training to make appropriate referrals and
issue orders that implement appropriate intervention strategies is critical for successful
court performance when working with court populations with characteristic special needs.
Conversely, managers of social service agencies and individuals who provide social ser-
vices at the case level are rarely conversant with the factors that determine either the
policy behavior of judges or how they handle case management and decision making in
the courtroom.
18 Personal communication with K. Davis of Richland Count), CASA, June 6, 2001.
PROMISING COMPONENTS FOR EFFECTIVE COURT-BASED SERVICE COORDINATION ~ 47
It is unlikely that legislative or other policy initiatives to establish specialized
courts or to make special efforts to coordinate family cases, for example, will be effective
without providing for in-depth education to support specialization in that area of the
law and its case dynamics. Periodic education and training should focus on two
key objectives:
• ensure that there is clarity about the respective mission and objectives of the
court and its service providers, and
• provide a forum for solidifying relationships among court, criminal justice,
and service agency personnel and promote a spirit of shared commitment
and collaboration directed at common problems.
But not all educational initiatives should be restricted in design to suit those
judges and staff who have specialized assignments working in service-intensive con-
texts (e.g., domestic relations, juvenile court, domestic violence dockets, criminal
court). Models for educational initiatives that reach all or most of the judges and
relevant support staffin a court should also be considered and developed, because highly
specialized dockets and long term or exclusive assignments to them is not the predomi-
nant rule of court organization.
There are special challenges associated with providing educational programs for
judges. Because of the nature of the work and the positions judges hold, there is an
enormous amount of competition for "training time" for judges. Programs intended for
wide exposure must necessarily be relatively short. Moreover, programs in these contexts
are perhaps the most difficult to design and implement successfully because the judicial
audience is likely to be unconvinced of the relevance of the education in the first place.
Judges are also likely to have professional biases about who is qualified to understand and
respond as educators to their needs. Resource guides that focus on these kinds of issues
should be consulted before embarking on the design and implementation of training for
jt, dges related to service coordination. Iv Judges and attorneys do not respond well to
training to improve "interdisciplinary understanding" in a general sense- concrete prob-
lems and concrete solutions should be the focus of education when opportunities arise
for training jt,dges (Hardin, 1993).
An effort to close a communication gap between providers and sitting judges in a
Family Court program was observed by project staff. 20 The setting was an interagency
work group meeting called and hosted by a judge of the family court. During the meet-
~'; For example, see Hardin's (1993) "How to Work with Your Court: A Guide for Child Welfare Agency Administrators. ~,o Luncheon meeting, October 16, 1997, Kent Regional Justice Center, Seattle, Washington.
48 ~ COURT RI-kSPONSES TO INDIVIDUALS IN NEED OF SERVICES
ing, the following sources of disconnects between court and service agency providers
came to light:
• Frequently court-referred clients appear at the agency requesting services "because
the judge said I had to come." They are not able to contribute directly to defining
the intervention agenda.
• The service agency has no clear idea of the reasons for the court referral, or what
the court expects from them. For example, the fact that the underlying case is one
of domestic violence is not enough information.
• The judge, in ordering services, was looking to the agency to provide diagnostic as
well as therapeutic interventions. The discussion revealed for the judge the prob-
lems this posed for service providers because providing diagnostic or evaluative
services is largely incompatible with the assumption of a therapeutic role by the
same person or agency. The disclosure of this fundamental role conflict made
plain the importance of interdisciplinary education.
An initial model proposed by the group for an education seminar format was a "case
study" approach, where participants in the seminar could explain and discuss their inter-
pretation of the issues posed by the case study, how they would (or did) respond, and the
problems they find that the study illuminates. The theory behind this approach is that
organizing the seminars around "real life" problems for judges and service providers in-
sures relevance and interest. The discussion format provides an opportunity to uncover
causes ofmiscommunications and explain misunderstandings, and surface differences in
organizational values and priorities that cause conflict and system malfunctions.
MOVING FORWARD
This report has emphasized (1) that effective service coordination takes place through-
out the court process, (2) that court performance goals should guide the court's service
coordination goals, and (3) that some of the principles and methods used by problem-
solving courts can be adapted by other courts to improve service coordination efforts.
The report also acknowledges that jurisdictions vary considerably in terms of their
legal culture and in terms of their service culture and resources. Different perspectives
on whether and how to proceed to improve service coordination vary within and be-
tween these two cultures. Though difficult, given this context, the importance of pro-
ceeding cannot be underestimated.
While the theoretical and philosophical debate about the proper role of the court in
service coordination should and does continue to be debated in scholarly articles, it
PROMISING COMPONENTS FOR EFFECTIVE COURT-BASED SERVICE COORDINATION 1~ 49
should not overshadow efforts to look for areas of agreement about service coordination
issues at the local jurisdictional level. In her book, The Argument Culture: Moving from Debate to Dialogue, Dr. Deborah Tannen (1998) cautions against an overreliance on
argument and critique as a method for addressing problems. She urges individuals to
look at why a proposition might work, or what parts of it might work, rather than
focusing only on the reasons why it might not. This was essentially the approach taken
by the initiators of problem-solving courts. By bringing together a variety of stakehold-
ers to discuss problems in common, alternative approaches for addressing the problems
were conceived. Though debate continues about the appropriateness and effectiveness
of problem-solving courts, jurisdictions can determine what aspects of the problem-
solving approach they can agree on and what principles and methods they may adapt to
make their current service coordination efforts more effective for individuals who work
in and are affected by the court system. A focus on what could work will help avoid the
costs of the argument culture: "As so often happens with the argument culture, the ulti-
mate price is paid by human beings in personal suffering" (Tannen, 1998, p. 273).
REFERENCES
Administrative Order No. VI-97-1-1A, b; re: Creation of a mental health court subdiv#ion within the county criminal division, Circuit Court of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County, Florida (1997).
American Bar Association Center for Continuing Legal Education. (1998). ABA summit on u,tified family courts: Evploring solutions for families, wome,l and children in crisis. Chi- cago: American Bar Association.
Arthur, L. G. (Ed.). (1979). National bench book for juvenile courts. St. Paul, MN: American Caselaw Corporation.
Babb, B. A. (1998). Fashioning an interdisciplinary framework for court reform in family law: A blueprint to construct a unified family court. Southern California Law Review, 71,469-545.
Belenko, S. (1998). Research on drug courts: A critical review. New York: The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University.
Berman, G. (2000). "What is a traditional judge anyway?": Problem solving in the state courts, fltdicature, 84, 78-85.
Bcmaa*a, G., & Feinblatr, J. (2001). Problem-solving courts: A brief primer {On-line]. Avail- able: http://www.courtinnovation.org/pd f/prob_solv_cottr ts.pd f.
Bureau of Justice Assistance. (1997). Trial court pe~ormance standards with commentary [Mono- graph]. Washington, DC: Author. (NCJ No. 161570)
Bu rhans, G., J r. (Ed.). (1998). Profiles ofselected unified family courts. Madison, WI: Associa- tion of Family Conciliation Courts.
Butts, J. A., & Mitchell, O. (2000). Brick by brick: Dismantling the border between juve- nile and adult justice. In C. M. Friel (Ed.), Crimi,mljustice 2000: Volume 2. Boundary changes in criminal justice organizations (pp. 167-213) [On-line]. Available / http:// www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/crinainal_justice2OOO/vol2_2OOO.ht*ul. (NCJ No. 182409)
52 ~- COURT RESPONSES TO INDIVIDUALS IN NEED OF SERVICES
Case),, P. (1994). Court-enforced drug treatment programs: Do they enhance court perfor- mance? The Justice System Journal, 17, 117-125.
Casey, E, Keilitz, I., & Hafemeister, T. L. (1992). Toward an agenda for reform of justice systems and mental health system interactions. Law and Human Behavior, 16, 107-128.
Center for court Innovation. (1997). Community courts: A manual of principles. Center for Court Innovation [On-line]. Available: www.communitycourts.com.
Children's Bureau. (1978). Specialized courts dealing with children. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. (Reprint of 1954 Specialized courts dealing with children, Washington, DC: Gov- ernment Printing Office).
Commission on the Future of the California Courts. (1993). Justice in the balance 2020. San Francisco: Supreme Court of California.
Conference of Chief Justices and Conference of State Court Administrators. (2000). CCJ Resolution 22; COSCA Resolution 4: In support of problem-solving courts. Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts.
Cooper, C. S. (1997). 1997 drug court survey report: Executive summary. Washington, DC: American University, School of Public Affairs, Justice Programs Office.
Coordination of Services to Families in Family Law Cases. (ORS 3.434(1) 1997).
Corriero, M. A. (1999). South African Paper: Proposals for a "Youth Justice Act". Criminal Justice Journal, 7(1), 55-63.
Criminal Justice Cabinet. (2000). Annual report 2000. Sacramento, CA: Sacramento County Executive Ofice.
Edwards, L. P. (1992). The juvenile court and the role of the juvenile court judge. Juvenile and Family Court Journal, 43, 25-32.
Family Law Act (Coordination of Services to Families in Family Law Cases) 1 Or. Rev. Stat. ~3.434 (1997 & 1999).
Family Law Act (Family Law Account) 1 Or. Rev. Stat, c}3.440 (1997).
Feinblatt, J., & Berman, G. (1997). Community court principles: A guide for planners [On- line[. New York: Center for Court Innovation (http://www.courtinnovation.org/cgi- bin/track.pl?p=pdf/com_court_prncpls.pdf).
Feinblatt, J., & Berman, G. (1999). Informed decisions: Technology in the courtroom [On- line]. New York: Center for Court Innovation (http://www.courtinnovation.org/cgi- bin/track.pl?p=pdf/info_deci.pdf).
Flango, C. R., Flango, V. E., & Rubin, H. T. (1999). How are courts coordinating family cases? Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts.
P~VF.R~NCF~ ~ 53
Fritzler, R. B., & Simon, M. J. (2000). Creating a domestic violence court: Combat in the trenches. Court Review, 37(1), 28-39.
Goldkamp, J. S., & Irons-Guynn, C. (2000). Emergingjudicialstrategiesfor the mentally ill in the criminal caseload: Mental health courts in Fort Lauderdale, Seattle, San Bernardino, and Anchorage [On-line]. Available: http:/ /www.ncjrs.orgl pdffiles l lbjal182504.pdf. (NCJ No. 182504)
Hardin, M. (1993). How to work with your court: A guide for child welfare agency administra- tors. Washington, DC: American Bar Association.
Hewitt, W. E., Gallas, G., Mahoney, B. (1990). Courts that succeed: Six profiles ofsuccessfid courts. Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts.
Hora, P. E, Schma, W.G. & Rosenthal, J. T. A. (1999). Therapeutic jurisprudence and the drug treatment court movement: Revolutionizing the criminal justice system's response to drug abuse and crime in America. Notre Dame Law Review, 74, 439-538.
Hoffman, M. B. (2000). Commentary: The drug court scandal. North Carolina Law Re- view, 78, 1437-1534.
Keilitz, S. (2000). Specialization of domestic violence case management in the courts: A na- tionalsurvey. Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts.
Kentucky Rules of Court, State. (1997). St. Paul: West Publishing.
Lee, E. (2000). Community courts: An evolving model IOn-line]. Available: http:// www.ncjrs.orglpdffilesllbjal183452.pdf. (NCJ No. 183452)
Levey, L. S., Steketee, M. W., & Keilitz, S. L. (2000). Lessons learned in implementing an integrated domestic violence court." The District of Coh~mbia experience. Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts.
Mack, J. (1909). The juvenile court. Harvard Law Review, 23, 104-122.
Mahoney, A. R. (1985). Time and process in juvenile court. TheJast4ceS),stemJourtml, I0. 37-55.
Mahoney, B. (1988). Changing times in trial courts. Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts.
Mental Health Task Force Fiscal and Data Subcommittee. (1998). 1998 mental heahh court report IOn-line]. Available: http://wwv.co.broward.fl.us/ojss/jsi00500.html.
The National Association of Drug Court Professionals Drug Court Standards Committee. (1997). Defining drug courts: The key components. Washington, DC: Drug Courts Pro- gram Office.
National Center for State Courts. (1986). Guidelines for Involuntary Civil Commitment. Mental and Physical Disabilify Law Reporter, 10, 409-514.
54 ~ COURT RESPONSES TO |NDIVIDUALS IN NEED OF SERV1CF~S
National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges' Mcohol & Substance Abuse Com- mittee (1995). Drugs--the American family in crisis: A judicial r e sponseS3 recom- mendations, flwenile and Family Court Journal, 46, 7-114.
Osborne, D. & Gaebler, T. (I 992). Reinventinggovernment: How the entrepreneurial spirit is transforming the public sector. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Page, R.W. (1993). Family courts: An effective judicial approach. Juvenile & Family Court Journal, 7-14.
Reno, J. (2000, February). Remarks of the honorable Janet Reno, Attorney General of the United States on reentry court initiative. Presentation at the John Jay College of Crimi- nal Justice, New York, NY.
Ross, C. J. (1998). The failure of fragmentation: The promise of a system of unified family courts. Family Law Quarterly, 32, 3-30.
Rossi, P. H., Freeman, H. E. & Wright, S. R. (1979). Evaluation:A systemic approach. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Rottman, D. B., Efkeman, H. S. & Casey, E (1998). A guide to court andcommunity col- laboration. Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts.
Rottman, D.B., & Hewitt, W. E. (1996). Trial court structure andpesCormance." A contempo- rary reappraisal. Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts.
Rubin, H. T. & Flango, V. E. (1992). Court coordination offamily cases. Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts.
Steadman, H. J. (1992). Boundary spanners: A key component for the effective interactions of the justice and mental health systems. Law and Human Behavior, 16, 75-87.
Supreme Judicial Court Standing Committee on Substance Abuse. (1998, April). Standards on substance abuse IOn-line]. Boston, MA: Author. Available: http://wvcw.state.ma.us/ courts/formsandguidelines/substancel.html#content.
Sviridoff, M., Rottman, D., Ostrom, B., & Curtis, R. (1997). Dispensing justice locally: The implementation and effects of the Midtown Communi{y Court. New York: Fund for the City of New York.
Tannen, D. (I 998). The argument culture: Moving from debate to dialogue. New York: Ran- dom House.
Travis, J., (2000). But they all come back: Rethinking prisoner reentry. Sentencing & Correc- tions, 7, 1-10.
APPENDIX A
RESOLUTION ON PROBLEM-SOLVING COURTS
ADOPTED BY THE
CONFERENCE OF CHIEF JUSTICES AND THE
CONFERENCE OF STATE COURT ADMINISTRATORS
APPENDIX A ~ 57
CONFERENCE OF CHIEF JUSTICES
CONFERENCE OF STATE COURT ADMINISTRATORS
CCJ Resolution 22 COSCA Resolution 4
In Support of Problem-Solving Courts
WHEREAS, the Conference of Chief Justices and the Conference of State Court Ad- ministrators appointed a Joint Task Force to consider the policy and adminis- trative implications of the courts and special calendars that utilize the prin- ciples of therapeutic jurisprudence and to advance strategies, policies and rec- ommendations on the future of these courts; and
WHEREAS, these courts and special calendars have been referred to by various names, including problem-solving, accountability, behavioral justice, therapeutic, prob- lem oriented, collaborative justice, outcome oriented and constructive inter- vention courts; and
WHEREAS, the findings of the Joint Task Force include the following: • The public and other branches of government are looking to courts to address
certain complex social issues and problems, such as recidivism, that they feel are not most effectively addressed by the traditional legal process;
• A set of procedures and processes are required to address these issties and prob- lems that are distinct from traditional civil and criminal adjudication;
• A focus on remedies is required to address these issues and problems ill addi- tion to the determination of fact and issues of law;
• The unique nature of the procedures and processes encourages the establish- ment of dedicated court calendars;
• There has been a rapid proliferation of drug courts and calendars throughout most of the various states;
• There is now evidence of broad community and political support and increas- ing state and local government funding for these initiatives;
58 ~ COURT RESPONSES TO |NDIX, qDUAI~S IN NEED OF SER~,qCES
• There are principles and methods grounded in therapeutic jurisprudence, in- cluding integration of treatment services with judicial case processing, ongoing judicial intervention, close monitoring of and immediate response to behavior, multidisciplinary involvement, and collaboration with community-based and government organizations. These principles and methods are now being em- ployed in these newly arising courts and calendars, and they advance the appli- cation of the trial court performance standards and the public trust and confi- dence initiative; and
• Well-functioning drug courts represent the best practice of these principles and methods;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Conference of Chief Justices and the Conference of State Court Administrators hereby agree to:
1. Call these new courts and calendars "Problem-Solving Courts," recognizing that courts have always been involved in attempting to resolve disputes and problems in society, but understanding that the collaborative nature of these new efforts deserves recognition.
2. Take steps, nationally and locally, to expand and better integrate the principles and methods of well-functioning drug courts into ongoing court operations.
3. Advance the careful study and evaluation of the principles and methods em- ployed in problem-solving courts and their application to other significant is- sues facing state courts.
4. Encourage, where appropriate, the broad integration over the next decade of the principles and methods employed in the problem-solving courts into the administration of justice to improve court processes and outcomes while pre- serving the rule of law, enhancing judicial effectiveness, and meeting the needs and expectations of litigants, victims and the community.
5. Support national and local education and training on the principles and meth- ods employed in problem-solving courts and on collaboration with other com- munity and government agencies and organizations.
6. Advocate for the resources necessary to advance and apply the principles and methods of problem-solving courts in the general court systems of the various states.
7. Establish a National Agenda consistent with this resolution that includes the following actions:
a. Request that the CCJ/COSCA Government Affairs Committee work with the Department of Health and Human Services to direct treatment funds to the state courts.
b. Request that the National Center for State Courts initiate with other organi-
APPENDIX A ~ 59
zations and associations a collaborative process to develop principles and methods for other types of courts and calendars similar to the 10 Key Drug Court Components, published by the Drug Courts Program Office, which define effective drug courts.
c. Encourage the National Center for State Courts Best Practices Institute to examine the principles and methods of these problem-solving courts.
d. Convene a national conference or regional conferences to educate the Con- ference of Chief Justices and Conference of State Court Administrators and, if appropriate, other policy leaders on the issues raised by the growing prob- lem-solving court movement.
e. Continue a Task Force to oversee and advise on the implementation of this resolution, suggest action steps, and model the collaborative process by in- cluding other associations and interested groups.
Adopted as Proposed by the Task Force on Therapeutic Justice of the Conference of Chief Justices in Rapid City, South Dakota at tile 52 "a Annual Meeting on August 3, 2000.
APPENDIX B
DEBATE ABOUT COURT INVOLVEMENT
IN SERVICE-RELATED ISSUES
APPENDIX B ~,~ 63
C O U R T INVOLVEMENT IN SERVICE-RELATED ISSUES
What is the role of courts in responding to the service needs of individuals and families who come before the court? Some scholars and practitioners maintain that courts should not be involved in service issues based on arguments such as:
• Courts are not equipped to handle the provision of health and social services. They lack the necessary training and resources needed to effectively assess service needs, identify potential services to address the needs, and evaluate the delivery and effectiveness of the service. 2~
• Involvement in the provision of services can compete with the court's traditional role as the neutral trier of facts (Mulvey, 1982). The independence of the court could be jeopardized if the judge becomes too involved in an individual defendant's service needs and treatment progress. The court's independence also could be threatened if it becomes too closely allied with certain treatment providers. Fre- quent contacts between a judge and service providers could result in the judge showing partiality to some providers over others or could create situations in which a provider has an opportunity to influence judicial opinion in individual cases.
• The Constitutional mandate for the Judicial Branch of Government is to resolve legal issues that come before the courts, The Executive and Legislative Branches are responsible for delivering services and setting policy regarding what services are in the public interest. Courts should not be trying to address social ills. 22
• When courts are directly involved in the conduct of services such as i,ltake screen- ings, assessments, and custody investigations, by their own employees, the possi- bilities for bias are enhanced. That is, when evidence or professional opinion offered by court staff conflicts with that of other parties to the case, or their
.,L See Geragh D' (1997, p. 190): The work of the lav,9'ers and judges in our juvenile court and in most large urban courts is simply unmanageable. It is impossible to do one's job thoroughly. The numbers simply do not permit suffi- cient attention to individual cases. Moreover. tl~ere are few dispositional alternatives which adequately meet the needs of the children who come before the court.
See also Mulvey (1982): "Viewed organizationally, the family court is not designed for optimal social service delivery, but instead suffers from a potentially crippling oversight" (p. 59).
.u See Geraghty (1997, pp. 237-38), "We do not expect our courts to solve social problems."
64 ~- COURT RESPONSES TO INDIVIDUAI.S IN NEED OF SERVICES
advocates, the employer/employee relationship between the judge and court staff may inappropriately influence judicial decisions.
• Competing philosophies, goals and treatment modalities can cause confusion. Mulvey (1982) discusses this in the context of family cases: "Probably the most basic conceptual difficulty in merging legal, judicial logic and family theory has to do with the assumptions of each perspective regarding the causes of observed family behavior" (p. 53).
On the other hand, those who contend that the court does have at least some role in service issues argue the following:
• Although each Branch of Government has a primary area of public responsibil- it),, each also performs "other-Branch" responsibilities in the conduct of its work. For example, the legislature has an "executive" function responsible for provid- ing services to its members and an "adjudicative" function responsible for dis- pute reso(ution (e.g., disciplinary reviews). Executive functions include develop- ing and promulgating policy in the form of administrative regulations and adju- dicatory activities in the form of administrative law tribunals. Thus, to some extent, court involvement in "other-Branch" responsibilities also should be ex- pected. Courts "legislate" in the form of court rules. Administering services is an executive activity courts engage in as part of the effective discharge of their judi- cial duties (e.g., ensuring individual attention to cases and the enforcement of court orders).
• Some statutes and/or court rules explicitly hold courts responsible for coordinat- ing or providing services for specific types of cases or, more generally, for ensuring the well-being of individuals involved in specific types of cases (e.g., dependency and guardianship cases). 23
• Courts have an oversight role to ensure that the terms of their orders are met, and the public holds them accountable for the enforcement of their orders. Many orders include the provision of services. If terms are not complied with, it is rea- sonable that courts determine the causes of noncompliance (e.g., ineffective or limited service resources in the community) and potential strategies for remedy- ing the problems (e.g., creating new programs, or strengthening or redirecting the efforts of service providers to better meet the terms of court orders), e4
23 See Zimmerman (1998): But as the public and legislatures, not to mention the federal government, increasingly dentand more participation and coordination by the judiciary in the addressing of social problems that evidence themselves in courts, the judiciary is going to have to face a new cultural reality. The detached magis- trate model of judges' law school days will increasingly not be tbe preferred model in the trial courts. More trial judges are going to have to become more adept at entering into the management of people's problems and coordinating social services to address those problems. (pp. 109-110)
24 See Zimmerman (1998): The demand is that judges and the judicial system become more expert in people's problems and more active in seeing that services are provided, rather than dealing only with the manifestations of their
PROPERTY OF' National Criminal Justice Beference Service (NOJR B . Box 6000 "-" . . . . Rockville, MD 208490600 . .....
• Bias as a consequence of frequent interaction is no more a concern with service providers than with other professionals (e.g., lawyers) with whom a judge fre- quently interacts. Interactions with service providers can be subject to the same types of controls (e.g., behavioral protocols, standards of ethical conduct) used to govern all judicial interactions.
• Courts, like other public institutions, are expected to discharge their responsibili- ties at the highest level of quality that is consistent with the available resources. Thus it makes sense for courts to evaluate each incoming case and provide for its resolution by applying the resource that is economically most appropriate.
• Court involvement in the delivery of services may confer "legitimacy" in the eyes of those receiving the services.
These contrasting points of view on the court's involvement in service issues are reflections, in part, of the natural tension bet~veen a court's role as an independent insti- tution and its role as a member of the governing community. The Commission on Trial Court Performance Standards acknowledged and embraced this tension. Consistent with arguments favoring a limited role in service issues, for example, the Commission maintains:
For a trial court to persist in both its role as preserver of legal norms and as a separate branch of government, it must develop and maintain its distinctive and independent status. It also must be conscious of its legal and administrative boundaries and vigilant in protecting them. (BJA, 1997,p. 18)
However, the Commission also recognizes that trial courts are part of a wider system of interacting agencies that are required to work together to achieve quality in the pur- suit of the public interest:
The court must achieve independent status, however, without damaging the reciprocal relationships that it maintains with others. Trial courts are necessar- ily dependent upon the cooperation of other components of the justice system over which they have little or no direct authority . . . . Ira trial court is to attain institutional independence, it must clarify, promote, and institutionalize effec- tive working relationships with all other components of the justice system. (BJA, 1997, p. 18)
The inference is that a well-performing court necessarily must interact with other public institutions--including the network of service providers on which the court relies--to achieve quality in its performance.
While advocates of both positions continue to argue the theoretical implications, the number of specialized courts that have emerged during the last decade, and the state court leadership support of further study and adoption of the principles these courts follow, suggest a movement toward more, rather than less, court involvement in service- related issues at the practice level.
problems that fit within our traditional civil or criminal law tasks. This may involve simple coordina- tion with social service agencies, or it may involve ongoing supervision of the provision of those ser- vices. (p. 109)
66 ~ COURT RESPONSF.S TO INDI\qDUALS IN NEED OF SERVICES
R E F E R E N C E S
Bureau of Justice Assistance. (1997). Trial court performance standards with commentary [Monograph]. Washington, DC: Author. (NCJ No. 161570)
Geraghry, T. E (1997). Justice for children: How do we get there? JournalofCriminal Law & Criminology, 88, 190-241.
Mulvey, E. 12. (1982). Family courts. Law and Human Behavior, 6, 49-64.
Zimmerman, M, D. (1998). A new approach to court reform. Judicature, 82, 108-11 I.
0
C ~ C 2 2
National Center for State Courts
Williamsburg, Virginia